"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:30:27 -0500, "RCE" wrote:

In my life there have been more people telling me I
couldn't do something than those who encouraged me to try. I rarely
listened to the first group.

damn straight...

And isn't jps a corporate CEO?

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:55:51 -0500, thunder
wrote:

If I'd lost my retirement and was forced to eat cat food
during my Golden Years because of some fat cat's greed, I'd be thinking
he'd better be spending heavily on security.

wha? you mean you'd take the - law - into your own hands?

tsk.... :)

actually, i agree with you. and i know how and have the - stuff- - to
do it from long range - really long range. :)

You were not Air Force. We specialized in long range.

NOYB wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:14:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

But I can assure you that in their latest
entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and
engineering is on par with the best of them again.

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

see - thats what i don't understand. you dont gain anything by
leasing a vehicle for a stated length of time.



I gain a new car every 3-3 1/2 years. If I bought the car, but
financed it,
I'd barely be even in 3 years. If I paid cash, and traded it, I'd lose
$25k
in depreciation in that time period.


we ordinarily keep our cars for at least 100k if not more than that -
i think the grand marquis my wife had before the town car had 140k on
it when we traded it in.

You're smarter than me. But I've got a soft spot for new cars. Your
way is
of course the smartest way to own a car.

Not necessarily......if you drive exactly the miles that the lease
alllows you every year, it is better to lease, at the end of the lease, if
market value is higher than the buy option, you simply buy it and sell it,
if it is lower, you let the auto company take the loss.


I search for leases with the highest residual value. The car I just bought
had a 59% residual value after 39 months. That's about 20 percentage points
too high for what is realistic on that car. But it's GMAC taking the
hit...not me.



I was over to a local Toyota dealer recently and we were talking about
this. The saleslady said they aim for actual market value at the end of
the lease. Their higher payment schedule must reflect a more accurate
cost of the value you receive. Better I guess if you plan on buying the
vehicle at the end of the lease period.
Not sure if leasing is a good option for someone like me who drives 10K
- 12K km per year.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.


Why worry about the control of the waste? There are so many former soviet
union nukes out there to be bought or stolen. Iran, North Korea rogue states
have nuclear plants making good, non-waste weapons grade product, that the
security of the waste is not as critical anymore. And how much waste are
you talking about? It is not like the left over from mining, that take up
miles of land. We already have lots of waste up by Chuck, that is trying to
leach into the Columbia. We have to move a lot of that to Yucca Mt. no
matter what. They can only solidify so much of the ground around the waste
containers. We have to have oil for a lot of the products we use, so there
still will have to be petroleum pumped, but we could cut our usage by
probably 75% by going fission nuclear for the present time. This would
remove a lot of the middle eastern bargaining chips as well as a huge amount
of money to them. And think what happens to the manufacturing base in
China, if we get cheap power. We could pay our people more than the
Chinese, and still be competitive. Not the $100k a year for an assembly
line flunky that HK thinks they require, but they would have a living wage.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power plants
the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.


Why worry about the control of the waste?

Step 1) Grab a Kleenex and wipe the drool off your chin.

Step 2) On the way home, buy the February issue of Scientific American.

Step 3) Read the article on managing unsecured nuclear materials.

Frankly, the Democrats did not field even ONE 'Swift Boat Veterans' type
ad campaign,


NOYB wrote:
Moveon.org


Yeah right.

1- was it's budget $100 million +

2- was it funded by blatant partisans

3- did it publish outright lies & slander based on fiction,
aimed directly at the most prominent Republicans

The answer to all three is 'not even close' so therefor it's
hardly equal, is it?

Or is your moral position 'the Democrats occasionally don't
tell the whole boring truth, so therefor is't OK for
Republicans (espeically the most radical fundie hard-right
faction) to scream lies all the time'?

It's a rather odd situation for the party of "morality and
responsibility" to be in.

DSK

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:42:08 GMT, Fred Dehl
wrote:

Most species attack when cornered. You just whimper. Pathetic.

Good bye Freddie.

plonk

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:
Fred Dehl wrote:


Illiterate asshole,

Read the post again. Do you know what the **** a "profit margin" is?
God you're the stupidest sack of **** in the world.



Uh, Fred, you're not in your kitchen here. Try to control your foul
mouth.

Thanks.

I doubt his mommy would let him talk that way at home.....
at least not without a cake of soap to clean up afterwards.

I guess it is OK when jps writes it?

Don't try to paint me with a brush that doesn't apply (today).

I may break down and call people assholes and cocksuckers some other day
but I've chosen to hold my tongue in these proceedings in hopes of
making more important points.

I hope you appreciate my attempt at civility.

jps

I appreciate the attempt. But where is his netcopping when you fail at your
attempts?

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:01:00 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

concourse cars are - well, reproductions and not worth the incredible
amounts of money they command. they are for people with too much
money and not enough sense.

I'd like to edge a little closer to your last statement, personally.

I don't care whether they're concourse, I want to drive 'em and dote on
'em.

concourse cars aren't for driving - they are for showing.



I guess that's up to the owner, eh?

Classification doesn't portend utilization.

If I bought a car that was classified concourse, it wouldn't be for the
purpose of showing it.

It would be for the purpose of driving it.

I stand ready for any other smartypants comments you need make.

jps

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:03:55 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:02:32 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

A much stronger car of the 1960s...a TR4A-IRS. I had one of those, too.
Great car. Not nearly as pretty as the MGA, but...it ran and ran and
ran.

Always wanted a red 'Healy 3000 from that era.


Indeed. An aluminum bodied 100-6. Love 'em.

pansies...

Not if you stuff a chevy in there. Was funny how years ago, people would
claim the AH 1000's would be turds in the handling area, when they had a
chevy small block replace that huge hunk of cast iron from England. Was
that they were not used to power. The small block engine was about 200#
less in weight.