BoatBanter.com - Marina Gas over $3.00 Locally

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Marina Gas over $3.00 Locally (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/47487-re-marina-gas-over-%243-00-locally.html)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:47:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:52:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

Speaking of status symbols, I was just at the barber shop, browsing a car
magazine. Lincoln's selling what they call a "luxury pickup truck".
Someone
ought to be shot for that. You *know* they're not going to bought by
bricklayers & carpenters who are gonna beat the crap out of them. That
leaves.....well...you know who.

You've never taken your Cadillac Escalade offroading into the woods and
swamps?
Why pay 22,000 for an F150 when you can pay 40,000 for the Lincoln pickup?

In this case, we are in total agreement. But look at all the dumb ****s
that
bought Hummers. I wonder how many have ever left the pavement.

Around here, the Hummers are absolutely spotless and perfectly waxed. I have
*never* seen one that was dirty.

Ditto! The same is true for Cadillac Escapades. I saw an Escapade the other day
with a plate saying "4WEELIN". ...Right!

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

Bill McKee wrote:

Prius on a good day makes 45 mpg. That is nice, but the only ones who are
beating the 45 mpg max are the "hot rodders" who are stuffing more batteries
in and adding the "plug in hybrid" capability. Long highway trip, you will
get about 30 on a hybrid. Very little braking, slowing down, etc that is
recovered as stored energy. The around town and short stop and go trips are
the most efficient use. The plug in modifiers get the advantage of the
extra battery capacity and plug in to the house charging. Up until a couple
of years ago, that voided the hybrids warrantee.

As usual, dead wrong again!!! See he
http://randyrathbun.org/prius/prius_mileage/

Then this:

After driving Diesel Volkswagens for 25 years, we have moved into a new
era. We are now driving a 2002 Toyota Prius hybrid car. So far, we
can report that driving the Prius is remarkable for being so
unremarkable -- it feels very much like any other Toyota with an
automatic transmission, only better because the transmission is in
effect continuously variable. A computerized control system moves
energy between the gasoline engine, the electric motors, the battery,
and the wheels; if it weren't for the readout on the dash, we probably
wouldn't notice most of the optimizations that it performs.

Toyota Prius dash and shift lever
Toyota Prius mileage computer

Especially in winter driving, we found that mileage is much better once
the engine is warmed up; the warmup is much faster when temperatures
are higher. In the pictures above, we had just completed a trip of
about 35 minutes duration in 55 degree weather (clicking on either
picture will display a larger version). The mileage was relatively
poor in the first 10 minutes (the first five are not shown), then
steadily improved during highway driving to more than 50 mpg. The
final 10 minutes show very high efficiency in low-speed driving, when
the Prius can shut off its gasoline engine much of the time and operate
silently in electric mode using stored energy from the battery. For
this reason, city mileage really is often better than highway mileage.

And this that shows an average of 48.2 mpg:
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/m.../car/1089.html

And this, showing virtually the same mileage:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16705.shtml

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:59:26 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:

In your wet dreams, perhaps. Bush no longer has the standing to wage a
war
on trumped-up evidence. For him to do *anything* Iran, that country
would have to be taking blatant, overt actions that directly threaten
the
United States, and for Bush to even suggest anything like that, he'd
need
hard evidence.

I'm not so sure, Harry. Who's to stop him? Surely, not our gutless
Congress. Still, I don't see it happening. Iraq is keeping our military
rather occupied, and I don't see that situation changing anytime soon.

What's to stop him? Vox Populi.

Foreign policy isn't subject to Vox Populi. At least not in non-election
years.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
.................snip............
He described recent US government actions as "aggressive" in a
speech
at
a youth festival in Caracas.

As a result, Venezuelan oil "instead of going to the United States,
could go elsewhere," he said.
produces 80% of the world's supply.
...............snip..............
If Chavez turns off the spigot, you'll start to see violence at the
gas
pump.
Harry.......You heard it first here! Venezuela will soon be
attacked
by
the USA..........There will be some feeble excuse invented by the CIA
and
American troops will invade.

Nope. Iran is in the crosshairs right now.

In your wet dreams, perhaps. Bush no longer has the standing to wage a
war
on trumped-up evidence. For him to do *anything* Iran, that country
would have to be taking blatant, overt actions that directly threaten
the
United States, and for Bush to even suggest anything like that, he'd
need
hard evidence.

...or an Iraqi/Iranian border dispute that escalates just a wee bit too
much.

First will come sharper sanctions, then a marine embargo, and then Iran
lashing out at us. We'll simply be reacting in self-defense.

Perhaps you, "Smithers," Robbins, Fritz, Calif Ill, Herring, and a few
other righties can volunteer yourselves into a platoon and head over to
the Middle East to stop some bullets for Dumb Boy Bush. Send me a
postcard
from the front.

I don't believe we should occupy Iran. I think we should just completely
destroy their infrastructure, and make it impossible for them to arm
terrorists flooding into Iraq and Israel.

harry must have missed this.............

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/52321.htm

So folks don't have to register:
THE REAL IRAQ NEWS
By RALPH PETERS

WHAT was the big "Iraq" story in August? Which vital issue got the most
air-time and ink? The camp-out of a sad, tormented woman who had lost her
son, her marriage and her judgment.

The media pounced on poor Cindy Sheehan in an anti-Bush, anti-war frenzy.
The disappointment was obvious when she decided to go home.

What should have made headlines? It would've been nice to see more attention
devoted to the complexity and importance of drafting a new constitution for
Iraq. But my nomination for the "Greatest Story Never Told" is a quieter
one: Locked in a difficult war, the U.S. Army is exceeding its re-enlistment
and first-time enlistment goals. Has anybody mentioned that to you?

Remember last spring, when the Army's recruitment efforts fell short for a
few months? The media's glee would have made you confuse the New York Times
and Air America.

When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers
dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered
was the wonderful news that the Army couldn't find enough soldiers. We were
warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train
wreck.

Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army's numbers look great.
Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record
levels. And you don't hear a whisper about it from the "mainstream media."

Let's look at the numbers, which offer a different picture of patriotism
than the editorial pages do.

* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions - its key combat organizations - has
exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most
intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is
at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with
the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and
the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its
re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft.
Where are the headlines?

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last
spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every
young American despises his or her country and our president.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away
from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment
stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years
that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention
comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I've even heard
a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up - but let's wait for
confirmation on that.)

Of course, we'll hear stammering about an "army of mercenaries"- naive,
uneducated kids lured by the promise of big retention bonuses. That's
another lie told by the elite to excuse themselves from serving our country
in uniform.

The young men and women who have been through the crucible of combat - often
on repeated deployments - are hardly naive. Their education levels exceed
the American average. And, as of Aug. 2, the Army had spent a 2005 total of
only $347 million on Selective Re-enlistment Bonuses - that's weekend
walking-around money for America's Fortune 500 CEOs.

Big bucks for risking your life? Not hardly. Only 60 percent of soldiers get
any re-enlistment bonus. For the overwhelming number whose skills merit an
extra incentive, bonuses runs between $6,000 and $12,400 per year of
contracted service - per year of facing death, wounds, separation from
family and uncertainty as to whether you'll ever see that family again.

A total of 643 soldiers with very special capabilities, from special
operators to doctors, got an average payment of $57,000 - a fraction of what
the private sector offers them for doing the same jobs at far less risk.

No, they don't do it for the money.

Guess we have to face it: Patriotism is alive and well. Soldiers believe in
the Army, and they believe in their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They
love their comrades, too. And yes, the word is "love." They would die for
the man or woman serving beside them. They're risking their lives to save a
broken state, to give tens of millions of human beings a chance at decent
lives, to do the grim work that no one else in the world is willing to do.

Their reward? The Cindy Sheehan Extravaganza. Predictions of disaster. The
depiction of Michael Moore as a hero and our soldiers as dupes. And a
ceaseless attempt to convince the American people that there's no hope in
Iraq.

The ugly truth is that much of the media only cares about our soldiers when
they're dead or crippled. That's a story.

As you read this, 500,000 soldiers are on active duty because they chose to
serve their country. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of Reservists and
Guard members have been called into uniform. And they're all behaving as
true soldiers do: Running toward the sound of the guns, not away from them.

We should be humbled by their choices, honored by their sacrifices, and
proud of what they're fighting to achieve. Instead of the jerk's refrain
"Support our troops, bring them home," the line should run "Support our
troops, make their home worthy of them."

Our young men and women in uniform - in every service - deserve far better
than we've given them.

(BTW--If you don't want to register in order to log on to online newspapers,
etc, then get the BugMeNot plugin for Mozilla. Right click on the username,
and a random username pops up for most websites)

Paul,
One of the problems with Hummers is there is a tax incentive for small
businessmen to buy a Hummer for the tax write off. This should be
corrected.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:52:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

Speaking of status symbols, I was just at the barber shop, browsing a
car
magazine. Lincoln's selling what they call a "luxury pickup truck".
Someone
ought to be shot for that. You *know* they're not going to bought by
bricklayers & carpenters who are gonna beat the crap out of them. That
leaves.....well...you know who.

You've never taken your Cadillac Escalade offroading into the woods and
swamps?
Why pay 22,000 for an F150 when you can pay 40,000 for the Lincoln
pickup?

In this case, we are in total agreement. But look at all the dumb ****s
that
bought Hummers. I wonder how many have ever left the pavement.

But it is THEIR choice.......I hope you don't prefer the guvmint dictate
what they buy.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

Kevin,
The fact is consumers were making the decisions to buy larger less fuel
efficient cars and autos. This is a long term trend that started in the
early 90's. Were you willing to accept a sur tax on less efficient cars and
trucks?

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks
in
Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65.

Thanks, Dubya.

If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you
had.

Bad Policy Fuels High Prices

As millions of Americans hop in their cars for vacation, the average
price for a gallon of gas has spiked to $2.60 -- and many people are
paying more than $3.00 per gallon to fill their tank. While most
everyone is feeling the pinch, "for many lower-income people -- often
those who work in service jobs or are looking for work -- each new bump
up in price means altering daily routines, spending less on clothes and
food, and keeping the kids at home instead of driving them to the pool
or friends' houses." A big part of the problem is that, despite huge
advances in technology, "America's cars and trucks are significantly
less efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's," driving
up demand, and the price, for fuel. Meanwhile, the Bush administration
has staunchly resisted efforts to help solve the problem by improving
fuel efficiency standards. Now, all Americans are paying the price.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION CONCEALS FUEL ECONOMY REPORT: In late July, "the
Environmental Protection Agency made an 11th-hour decision...to delay
the planned release of an annual report on fuel economy." The decision
to block the release of the report was made "because it would have come
on the eve of a final vote in Congress on energy legislation." The
study showed that "the average 2004 model car or truck got 20.8 miles
per gallon, about 6 percent less than the 22.1 m.p.g. of the average
new vehicle sold in the late 1980's." Specifically, "the average 2004
model sold by Nissan, Hyundai and Volkswagen was at least a half-mile a
gallon less fuel-efficient than in the previous model year, a sharp
drop." (A report by Environmental Defense provides details for all
major manufacturers.) That wasn't news the Bush administration wanted
public to hear because the bill "largely ignore[d] auto mileage
regulations." Several Senators offered amendments "to strengthen fuel
economy standards for S.U.V.'s, minivans and pickups" but they were all
rejected. Bush signed the energy bill, which gave away billions to the
energy industry, on August 8. Even the administration acknowledges the
bill will do nothing to reduce gas prices.

FAST, FURIOUS AND GAS-GUZZLING: The failure to mandate the production
of more fuel efficient vehicles is a giant missed opportunity. There
have been "leaps in engine technology over the last couple of decades"
that could make cars much more efficient. But in the absence of
stricter efficiency standards, these gains "have been mostly used to
make cars faster." Also, since the early 1980s, "average new vehicle
weight has risen to about 4,000 pounds today, from about 3,200." During
that time "the horsepower of an average engine has roughly doubled over
two decades, trimming four seconds from the time it takes for the
average vehicle to accelerate from zero to 60."

KEEP ON TRUCKING: The key to avoiding fuel efficiency standards is to
classify every new and trendy "crossover" vehicle as a truck. Light
trucks "are held to a lower [average fuel efficiency] standard-20.7
mpg as of model year 2003, compared to 27.5 mpg for cars."
Manufacturers are also moving vehicles that were once classified as
cars to the truck class "to sell more of the large trucks on which
profit margins have been so high." Today "S.U.V.'s and other light-duty
vehicles account for 40 percent of the nation's oil use." With only the
smallest cars remaining in the "car class" there is no pressure to
improve the efficiency of those vehicles either. President Bush and the
Congress had the opportunity to close these loopholes and improve
overall efficiency in the energy bill, but didn't do it. New
regulations set to be released later this month will create up to five
classes of vehicles based on height and width. Dan Becker of the Sierra
Club says the upcoming proposal is "an invitation to game the system."

BUSH PROTECTS MASSIVE LOOPHOLE FOR HUMMERS: In 2003, President Bush
proposed extending "fuel economy regulations to include Hummer H2's and
other huge sport utility vehicles," which are now completely exempt. As
gas prices soar to record levels, the administration has abandoned the
proposal. The exemption applies to vehicles weighing over 8,500 pounds.
When it was created, "vehicles of that weight were generally used for
commercial purposes, but now hundreds of thousands sold each year are
intended for family use." The exemption, along with potential tax
breaks for consumers who purchase them, create "powerful incentives to
produce such vehicles."

By your logic then, all of Europe must have two or three times the bad
leadership that we have. And countries like Venezuela, where gas is 13
cents
a gallon must have the best leadership ever!

How about sticking to the facts of the article?

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Paul,
One of the problems with Hummers is there is a tax incentive for small
businessmen to buy a Hummer for the tax write off. This should be
corrected.

I agree.....

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:52:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

Speaking of status symbols, I was just at the barber shop, browsing a
car
magazine. Lincoln's selling what they call a "luxury pickup truck".
Someone
ought to be shot for that. You *know* they're not going to bought by
bricklayers & carpenters who are gonna beat the crap out of them. That
leaves.....well...you know who.

You've never taken your Cadillac Escalade offroading into the woods and
swamps?
Why pay 22,000 for an F150 when you can pay 40,000 for the Lincoln
pickup?

In this case, we are in total agreement. But look at all the dumb ****s
that
bought Hummers. I wonder how many have ever left the pavement.

But it is THEIR choice.......I hope you don't prefer the guvmint dictate
what they buy.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Thanks for the article and the tip. The author is correct in his statements
about the 'mainstream media'. The good news is not anti-Bush, therefore not
good.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
.................snip............
He described recent US government actions as "aggressive" in a
speech
at
a youth festival in Caracas.

As a result, Venezuelan oil "instead of going to the United States,
could go elsewhere," he said.
produces 80% of the world's supply.
...............snip..............
If Chavez turns off the spigot, you'll start to see violence at the
gas
pump.
Harry.......You heard it first here! Venezuela will soon be
attacked
by
the USA..........There will be some feeble excuse invented by the CIA
and
American troops will invade.

Nope. Iran is in the crosshairs right now.

In your wet dreams, perhaps. Bush no longer has the standing to wage a
war
on trumped-up evidence. For him to do *anything* Iran, that country
would have to be taking blatant, overt actions that directly threaten
the
United States, and for Bush to even suggest anything like that, he'd
need
hard evidence.

...or an Iraqi/Iranian border dispute that escalates just a wee bit too
much.

First will come sharper sanctions, then a marine embargo, and then Iran
lashing out at us. We'll simply be reacting in self-defense.

Perhaps you, "Smithers," Robbins, Fritz, Calif Ill, Herring, and a few
other righties can volunteer yourselves into a platoon and head over to
the Middle East to stop some bullets for Dumb Boy Bush. Send me a
postcard
from the front.

I don't believe we should occupy Iran. I think we should just completely
destroy their infrastructure, and make it impossible for them to arm
terrorists flooding into Iraq and Israel.

harry must have missed this.............

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/52321.htm

So folks don't have to register:
THE REAL IRAQ NEWS
By RALPH PETERS

WHAT was the big "Iraq" story in August? Which vital issue got the most
air-time and ink? The camp-out of a sad, tormented woman who had lost her
son, her marriage and her judgment.

The media pounced on poor Cindy Sheehan in an anti-Bush, anti-war frenzy.
The disappointment was obvious when she decided to go home.

What should have made headlines? It would've been nice to see more attention
devoted to the complexity and importance of drafting a new constitution for
Iraq. But my nomination for the "Greatest Story Never Told" is a quieter
one: Locked in a difficult war, the U.S. Army is exceeding its re-enlistment
and first-time enlistment goals. Has anybody mentioned that to you?

Remember last spring, when the Army's recruitment efforts fell short for a
few months? The media's glee would have made you confuse the New York Times
and Air America.

When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers
dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered
was the wonderful news that the Army couldn't find enough soldiers. We were
warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train
wreck.

Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army's numbers look great.
Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record
levels. And you don't hear a whisper about it from the "mainstream media."

Let's look at the numbers, which offer a different picture of patriotism
than the editorial pages do.

* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions - its key combat organizations - has
exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most
intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is
at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with
the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and
the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its
re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft.
Where are the headlines?

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last
spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every
young American despises his or her country and our president.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away
from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment
stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years
that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention
comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I've even heard
a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up - but let's wait for
confirmation on that.)

Of course, we'll hear stammering about an "army of mercenaries"- naive,
uneducated kids lured by the promise of big retention bonuses. That's
another lie told by the elite to excuse themselves from serving our country
in uniform.

The young men and women who have been through the crucible of combat - often
on repeated deployments - are hardly naive. Their education levels exceed
the American average. And, as of Aug. 2, the Army had spent a 2005 total of
only $347 million on Selective Re-enlistment Bonuses - that's weekend
walking-around money for America's Fortune 500 CEOs.

Big bucks for risking your life? Not hardly. Only 60 percent of soldiers get
any re-enlistment bonus. For the overwhelming number whose skills merit an
extra incentive, bonuses runs between $6,000 and $12,400 per year of
contracted service - per year of facing death, wounds, separation from
family and uncertainty as to whether you'll ever see that family again.

A total of 643 soldiers with very special capabilities, from special
operators to doctors, got an average payment of $57,000 - a fraction of what
the private sector offers them for doing the same jobs at far less risk.

No, they don't do it for the money.

Guess we have to face it: Patriotism is alive and well. Soldiers believe in
the Army, and they believe in their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They
love their comrades, too. And yes, the word is "love." They would die for
the man or woman serving beside them. They're risking their lives to save a
broken state, to give tens of millions of human beings a chance at decent
lives, to do the grim work that no one else in the world is willing to do.

Their reward? The Cindy Sheehan Extravaganza. Predictions of disaster. The
depiction of Michael Moore as a hero and our soldiers as dupes. And a
ceaseless attempt to convince the American people that there's no hope in
Iraq.

The ugly truth is that much of the media only cares about our soldiers when
they're dead or crippled. That's a story.

As you read this, 500,000 soldiers are on active duty because they chose to
serve their country. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of Reservists and
Guard members have been called into uniform. And they're all behaving as
true soldiers do: Running toward the sound of the guns, not away from them.

We should be humbled by their choices, honored by their sacrifices, and
proud of what they're fighting to achieve. Instead of the jerk's refrain
"Support our troops, bring them home," the line should run "Support our
troops, make their home worthy of them."

Our young men and women in uniform - in every service - deserve far better
than we've given them.

(BTW--If you don't want to register in order to log on to online newspapers,
etc, then get the BugMeNot plugin for Mozilla. Right click on the username,
and a random username pops up for most websites)

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD