BoatBanter.com - Affording Fuel

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

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

- - Affording Fuel (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/65885-affording-fuel.html)

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:08:35 -0500, DSK wrote:

Look at the next part of the equation... who hands out lots & lots of
money to politicians? Mom-n-Pop stores? No. Businessmen who can
profitably
make goods & services without gov't intervention or plum cost-plus
contracts? No again.

thunder wrote:
I've said it before, but I think the incestuous relationship between
corporate welfare, in it's various guises, and campaign finance is the
biggest threat we have to this democracy. This Abramoff mess is just
one
example. You have to wonder who the politicos are working for.

No, you don't wonder at all, if you pay attention.

Eisenhower warned us about this. Maybe we should be grateful
that the 'dictatorship of the corporate interests' has held
off as long as it did. Meanwhile, voters are about the least
important concerns in Washington- 3 election cycles now have
proved that voters are stupid, have no memory at all, and
can be easily shilled into impoverishing & imprisoning
themselves.

i dont agree with that at all. the problem is that neither party is
presenting anything other than protective coloration for themselves
and their personal interests as individual politicians. its all about
them.

there is nothing wrong with a two party democracy, but the opposition
has to present a strong case, real alternatives and not more of the
same retorhic which plays to only a small part of their base. the
democrats are vapid and only interested in grandstanding.

the only solution is term limits - so dumbass fat slobs like ted
kennedy or dumasses like trent lott get the boot after two terms.

A better solution would be a return to the original set up of the
constitution, where the senate is not elected, but rather appointed by
the states. That would return the senate to be the representatives of the
state, and the house as representatives of the people. An important check
and balance that has been lost.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

One of the main premises for evacuation was based upon sending people off
in directions based upon prevailing wind conditions. But, I objected,
winds can sometimes rapidly change direction. I was told not to "push"
that thought.

I suspect most reasonably intelligent people are aware of the evacuation
nonsense. It's been taken to extremes in some cases, though. Do you remember
the debacle surrounding the proposed Shoreham plant on Long Island?

You might want to do some research on gasket problems. GM like ever other
manufacture had gasket problem. The result of the government mandate to
gasket manufactures to remove asbestos without giving the gasket
manufactures time to develop an alternative material. GM, Toyota, Chrysler,
Honda and every other manufacture were not at fault, they and their customer
were victims of a poorly planed government madate.

"trainfan1" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:

A lot of GM troubles are around their commitment to DexCool. Between
poorly designed & built gaskets, that stuff is just bad news...

Rob

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

One of the main premises for evacuation was based upon sending people
off in directions based upon prevailing wind conditions. But, I
objected, winds can sometimes rapidly change direction. I was told not
to "push" that thought.

I suspect most reasonably intelligent people are aware of the evacuation
nonsense. It's been taken to extremes in some cases, though. Do you
remember the debacle surrounding the proposed Shoreham plant on Long
Island?

Yes, indeed.

Most US cities cannot be evacuated on short notice under any
circumstances, and out in the boonies, there typically isn't the
infrastructure to handle heavy traffic.

We never got any sort of explanation from the county executive about what
the hell he was thinking when he let LILCO go ahead with that project. This
justifies my belief that there's a useful purpose for Mike Tyson and others
like him. Stick him in a room with a seriously guilty politician. Dose him
with LSD and amphetamines and tell him "See that guy in the tie? He says
you're a pussy." :-)

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

You're the mass transit advocate - you tell me. If you can. Which I
doubt.

You're right. Although mass transit works nicely in some countries, it could
not be implemented here, not ever. There are no solutions. How could I not
have realized this earlier?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

The guy you voted for in 2000 said that the internal combustion
engine is the greatest threat to mankind, and you're calling the
purchase of its lifeblood "mandatory"?
In a sense, he's correct. In many parts of this country, there an
almost religious aversion to using mass transportation, an idea that's
part of normal life in some countries, and a few of our busier cities.
Even in New York only 10% of commuters use mass transit.

The reasons to not use mass transit are numerous:

- It's slower. The average mass transit commute takes 75% longer than
the
same commute by car.

- It takes quality time away from families. I run errands on my lunch
hour. In my car. If I took mass transit to work, I'd be tied to the
office and have to run errands after work, decreasing my evening at-home
time (over and above the time lost to the longer commute as described
above).

- It's inconvenient. Unlike cars, mass transit seldom provides door-to-
door service. So you end up walking in the elements (rain, snow,
extreme
heat) or driving to the station (Hey, isn't the goal of mass transit to
"get us out of our cars"? Oops.)

- It degrades automobile travel. Buses move slowly, are impossible to
pass or see around, and stop every few blocks, slowing down traffic on
major arteries, decreasing fuel economy and increasing pollution
emissions. Plus if you drive to and from the transit station, your car
doesn't have a chance to warm up. This means greater engine wear and
decreased fuel economy.

- It's unsafe. Mass transit has a higher deaths-per-passenger-mile than
nearly every other method of transportation you can name. Also many
mass
transit stations, centers, and bus stops are nests of criminal activity.

- It doesn't get us out of our cars. In addition to the need to drive
from home to the station, mass transit doesn't let us combine trips.
Transit won't let you go grocery shopping on your way home. Or get a
haircut. Or visit the doctor. Or pickup your children from school.
With
a car you can do all that in one trip on the way home from work.

The overusage of private vehicles affects us in quite a few negative
ways. At the top of the list is a certain sort of stupidity that
blinds people to the effects of their decisions.
More smug condescension from the elitist left. Go back to your triple
latte and your Oprah-approved book o' lies.

You've proven my point. Meanwhile, how have other countries gotten around
some of the problems you've described? Are you aware of any of them, or
do you prefer to assume that things could not be much better?

Poor Fred.

When I need to get downtown for a morning meeting, I take public
transportation. It's much faster and much cheaper than driving into the
city and paying for parking. We have nine buses a day leaving from a
nearby commuter lot, one returns back at noon, and the others start
leaving downtown at 3 pm. If I want, I can also drive to a Metrorail
station, take the train downtown, and return whenever I like. Also much
cheaper than driving downtown.

My wife commutes on the bus to her downtown office. She usually buys a
10-ride ticket for $40. That's five round trips. Parking downtown is $12 a
day in a decent lot. Add to that the cost of fuel, wear and tear on the
car, insurance, and the fact that you can nap, read the paper or chat on
the bus, and driving into the city becomes a losing proposition.

OK, but don't you sometimes have to sit next to negroes or puerto ricans?
I'm really cynical. I think that's a major reason some people don't like
mass transportation. Matter of fact, a few have actually said it to me.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:51:57 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

There are legitimate reasons to be wary of nuclear power plants. We've had
some scares (TMI, Chernobyl), and I, for one, have no trust whatsoever in
the federal regulation of nuke plants, and very little trust in the
corporations that own them. Why should I, eh?

And several reasons why you shouldn't. Remember the first days of TMI?
Remember how we were assured there was no danger, only to find out it came
very close to a meltdown? And if you think anything had changed, how
about 9/11? Remember how over and over again, the rescue workers, and all
New Yorkers for that matter, were assured that the air wasn't hazardous to
their health? It turns out there were all sorts of contaminants and
carcinogens and many of the rescue workers are now dying premature deaths.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:51:57 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

There are legitimate reasons to be wary of nuclear power plants. We've
had
some scares (TMI, Chernobyl), and I, for one, have no trust whatsoever in
the federal regulation of nuke plants, and very little trust in the
corporations that own them. Why should I, eh?

And several reasons why you shouldn't. Remember the first days of TMI?
Remember how we were assured there was no danger, only to find out it came
very close to a meltdown? And if you think anything had changed, how
about 9/11? Remember how over and over again, the rescue workers, and all
New Yorkers for that matter, were assured that the air wasn't hazardous to
their health? It turns out there were all sorts of contaminants and
carcinogens and many of the rescue workers are now dying premature deaths.

Interesting how we like to view the Russians as being secretive about
disasters in their country.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

and the Hispanics speak better Spanish.

Ever seen the Cheech & Chong movie in which Cheech sings this stupid song
about Mexican Americans? He's stoned, so he thinks he's written a fabulous
song, including the line "Mexican-Americans like to go to night school and
take Spanish, and get a B...." :-)