|
Affording Fuel
|
Affording Fuel
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message . .. "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:03:17 -0800, jps wrote: Exxon, Chevron and Halliburton are having historically profitable years. Doe's this touch your brain at all? i know my portfolio has done quite well in the oil sector. You cannot deny them a profit, but it is obvious the oil company's are fleecing us. The previous quarter they had an ROI of 9.4%, Citigroup had a 24.7% ROI. Sure the oil numbers are bigger, but the overall numbers are bigger also. So do like Tom and I do, have some of your portfolio in oil. My Chevron is down from it's highest point. |
Affording Fuel
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... jps wrote in : In article , says... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in : You cannot deny them a profit, but it is obvious the oil company's are fleecing us. Knight-Ridder has a higher profit margin than Exxon-Mobil. Is "Big Media" fleecing us too? And if so, where are your protestations against them? One is a voluntary purchase, the other is as close to mandatory and one could come. Capiche? 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"? Reverend Gore will be quite disappointed that you haven't converted your home to solar and your car to ethanol or vegetable oil. After all, the enviro-loonies ARE right, right? That alternative energy sources are viable, practical and cost-efficient? Or is it all just a load of socialist lies designed to buttress the politics of envy? Your statement answers that last question definitively. Thank-you. And I suppose we'd be better off if we hadn't invented the gas engine, after all, the steam engine did just as well, right? That being the case, we should put all our investment in finding more expensive methods of sucking oil from the earth until we've run out of ways to do it. Then we can shift our attention to alternatives, right? Uhhhhh.... So, your extremist retort is, assuming that anyone not aligned with your near-sighted program is a faggot treehugger, our answer must be to stop using petroleum products tomorrow.... no, not soon enough... tonight!!!! Yeah, right. The world economy would fail if the US suddenly stopped using petroleum based products, your (much smarter) nemesis Al Gore knows that. The point you don't want to admit, the one that I'm trying to drive home, is that we need to make a bigger commitment to finding alternatives to fossil-based fuels or find and implement methods of using it more efficiently. With the current administration in control, that ain't gonna happen. They're so deeply in the pocket of big energy and corporate influence peddlers that they'd have to successfully fake their own deaths to break the stranglehold. There's no magic bullet but incremental investments in research and development of energy technology can certainly help stem the incredible dependence we have on petroleum. I expect you consider yourself a conservative. Why is it that you people preach anything but conservatism and still assume it's conservative thinking? jps We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the enviro's got the building of same, outlawed. |
Affording Fuel
"trainfan1" wrote in message ... Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:34:02 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: My truck has over 100k and the town car is approaching 100k - that little escort i bought to keep the gas milage down is over 100k - 115k in fact. 100k is nothing nowadays. That's true if you buy the right vehicle. Absolutely! My youngest son is now driving the Camry that I bought new in 1992. It is at almost 200K miles and still going strong in NYC traffic and roads. Rust will consume that car before wear & tear. My wife's Honda Accord is over 100K miles and still runs like new. It'd better. It's not even broken in yet. On the other hand our 1991 Dodge Caravan had trim falling off of it by 50,000 miles, 3 transmissions, all new brakes and a radiator by 70,000. It was getting too unreliable to keep, and it will be a long time before we buy another Chrysler product. I'd rather spend my money on boats. (on topic) My neighbors Honda minivan is maybe 3 years old, not that many miles, and is on it's 3rd tranny. Maybe it is a Chrysler product in disguise. |
Affording Fuel
"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? |
Affording Fuel
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... Well, no. He pockets his $50 million and saunters off stage left, whistling a happy tune. And his platinum parachute is paid for by the employees & common stockholders. It's the new corporate kleptocracy... I love it. We're not experiencing fascism, we're the subjects of a kleptocracy. I can't decide whether to laugh or cry. jps You know what? None of this matters. For every proven crook running a company, I'll find you an honest, hard working example. It all depends on one's personnel perspective of the world and business. If you tend to be of the cynical bent, you are going to find conspiracy and deceit behind every door. If you're a glass half full type your going to gravitate towards the belief that the system can work, despite Herculean problems. I've always been more of the latter. Obviously others here are not. Makes the world go 'round. 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. RCE |
Affording Fuel
|
Affording Fuel
jps wrote:
You really really miss the old days of political mud-throwing in this NG, don't you? Old days? It was just yesterday for me. AFAIC the group has been dumbed down, a perfect reflection of our society. I'm guessing the savings rate on brain cells and good ideas is, like savings, at a historical low. jps, I am curious, what is wrong with keeping this group a place to discuss boats and exchange friendly banter among boaters? -- Reggie ************************************************** ************* That's my story and I am sticking to it. ************************************************** ************* |
Affording Fuel
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.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. |
Affording Fuel
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:30:27 -0500, RCE wrote:
You know what? None of this matters. For every proven crook running a company, I'll find you an honest, hard working example. Personally, I'd expect you could find hundreds of honest businessmen for each crook, but there lies the problem. As you know, it's quite competitive out there. Competing with crooks isn't a level playing field. If we don't punish the crooks far more heavily than we do, even an honest businessman is tempted to shade the edges. What did Ebbers get? 25 years for an $11 billion fraud and there was talk that it was a "stiff" sentence. 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. It all depends on one's personnel perspective of the world and business. If you tend to be of the cynical bent, you are going to find conspiracy and deceit behind every door. If you're a glass half full type your going to gravitate towards the belief that the system can work, despite Herculean problems. I've always been more of the latter. Obviously others here are not. Makes the world go 'round. 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. RCE |
Affording Fuel
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message . .. "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:03:17 -0800, jps wrote: Exxon, Chevron and Halliburton are having historically profitable years. Doe's this touch your brain at all? i know my portfolio has done quite well in the oil sector. You cannot deny them a profit, but it is obvious the oil company's are fleecing us. What's really interesting is that the price of gasoline has also skyrocketed in Iraq. What's it up to now? Two dimes per gallon? If you think about it (and I know that can be a challenge), you'll realize that the absolute price doesn't matter, considering the circumstances. I don't know the exact percentage, but the majority of Iraqi provinces are peaceful places that are eager to join the modern civilized world. They're unaffected by the daily violence that occurs mainly in the Sunni triangle. Those folks are paying 40 cents per gallon for the same gasoline that costs us $3/gallon. So what do they have to whine about? If : 1) Your livelihood depends on fuel and 2) Your income remains the same or goes down, and the price of fuel triples and 3) You can't raise your prices quickly for any number of reasons .....it may be a problem. |
Affording Fuel
"jps" wrote in message
... Sure we can, if we listen to you faggot-assed treehuggers, stick daisies in our exhaust pipes and convert everything to windpower (except around Hyannisport, of course. You think JimH is a faggot-assed treehugger? Whew, you just blew any claim to February 29th cerebral function, as I'm sure several of us had already suspected. jps Freddy's new here. He has a short attention span, so he can't stick around a conversation long enough to make any sense. Ignore him. He'll be gone in 24 hours, and then waiting for another golden opportunity to say something weird. |
Affording Fuel
"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. |
Affording Fuel
"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. What do France and Japan do with their nuclear waste? I believe that 80% of France's electricity is generated from nuclear power plants and I believe that Japan's is somewhere above 30%. |
Affording Fuel
"Don White" wrote in message ... jps wrote: In article , says... " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in : And folks can choose to stop buying newspapers. Not true of gasoline. Bull****, asswipe. JohnH, are you going to step in here to calm this peckerhead down? Why is it that you're so quick to offer the preamble to the left and not so quick in name-callers like this. For Christ's sake, he just called JimH a faggot treehugger. I just about fell out my chair!!! jps Yes...never a netcop around when you need one! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! |
Affording Fuel
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:30:20 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:
We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the enviro's got the building of same, outlawed. Nuclear is not a cure. It may be part of the solution, but it is not a cure. With new technologies, such as a Pebble Bed Reactor, safety concerns have been eliminated or, at least, substantially reduced. However, there is still nuclear waste to deal with. Burying waste in Yucca Mountain is, essentially, sweeping it under the carpet. Also, uranium reserves are finite. 50 years, or so, with present technologies, but that would be expected to lengthen with more advanced technologies. Nuclear could provide a solution for our lifetimes, but eventually it to would end. We need to think in terms of sustainable energy. |
Affording Fuel
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:30:20 +0000, Calif Bill wrote: We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the enviro's got the building of same, outlawed. Nuclear is not a cure. It may be part of the solution, but it is not a cure. With new technologies, such as a Pebble Bed Reactor, safety concerns have been eliminated or, at least, substantially reduced. However, there is still nuclear waste to deal with. Burying waste in Yucca Mountain is, essentially, sweeping it under the carpet. Also, uranium reserves are finite. 50 years, or so, with present technologies, Whatever happened to breeder reactors? They are supposed to produce more fuel than they use. RCE |
Affording Fuel
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:43:04 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:
What do France and Japan do with their nuclear waste? I believe that 80% of France's electricity is generated from nuclear power plants and I believe that Japan's is somewhere above 30%. They haven't solved the problem, either. France reprocesses the nuclear waste. This retrieves the energy it can, and condenses the waste. It then, either "stocks" it, or ships it abroad. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...gs/french.html http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466 |
Affording Fuel
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. "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. What do France and Japan do with their nuclear waste? I believe that 80% of France's electricity is generated from nuclear power plants and I believe that Japan's is somewhere above 30%. I don't know what they do with it. In some cases, they (and other countries) got fuel from us, and for some years, there's been an effort underway to have them voluntarily return the spent fuel so (in theory) we can store it safely. The program's moving too slowly, not because of any political resistance, but simply because politicians are too busy with more exciting things that hold the public's interest. The February 2006 issue of Scientific American contains the best article I've ever seen on the subject. It's definitely worth your effort to run out and find it today. I'd summarize it for you, but I haven't finished reading it. My son keep sticking the magazine in his book bag and taking it to school to read during lunch. Excerpt from web site - but it's hardly the juicy part: Thwarting Nuclear Terrorism Many civilian research reactors contain highly enriched uranium that terrorists could use to build nuclear bombs By Alexander Glaser and Frank N. von Hippel The atomic bomb that incinerated the Japanese city of Hiroshima at the close of World War II contained about 60 kilograms of chain-reacting uranium. When the American "Little Boy" device detonated over the doomed port, one part of the bomb's charge--a subcritical mass--was fired into the other by a relatively simple gunlike mechanism, causing the uranium 235 in the combined mass to go supercritical and explode with the force of 15 kilotons of TNT. The weapon that devastated Nagasaki a few days later used plutonium rather than uranium in its explosive charge and required much more complex technology to set it off. Despite the production of more than 100,000 nuclear weapons by a few nations and some close calls during the succeeding 60 years, no similar nuclear destruction has occurred so far. Today, however, an additional fearful threat has arisen: that a subnational terrorist organization such as al Qaeda might acquire highly enriched uranium (HEU), build a crude gun-type detonating device and use the resulting nuclear weapon against a city. HEU is uranium in which uranium 235, the isotope capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction, has been concentrated to levels of 20 percent or more by weight....continued at Scientific American Digital |
Affording Fuel
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:44:01 -0500, "P. Fritz" wrote: "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 know someobdy in the car business, less than 1% of the lease cars ever are returned at or under their milage and almost never in prime condition. That is the catch ;-) |
Affording Fuel
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:23:11 -0500, RCE wrote:
Whatever happened to breeder reactors? They are supposed to produce more fuel than they use. And another plus, breeders can be used to reprocess existing waste. I believe the limitations are cost, breeders are more expensive to run, and proliferation fears, breeders can produce weapons grade material. Also, by Executive Order (Carter), reprocessing nuclear fuel has been banned here. |
Affording Fuel
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
... If sales go up, profits should as well. Not necessarily. |
Affording Fuel
"jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "jps" wrote in message ... In article . net, says... "Tamaroak" wrote in message . .. More people are living in cardboard boxes in this country than ever and these fat cats are making more and paying less taxes than ever. And we are STILL cutting taxes while the deficit skyrockets. How can these people call themselves conservative? The deficit fell from '04 to '05...and its expected to continue to fall through at least '09. In the past 30 years we've gone from: Biggest importer of raw materials and exporter of finished goods to Biggest exporter of raw materials and largest importer of finished goods. China and Japan own a large percentage of our currency, corporations are allowed to operate offshore to avoid taxation and more of our currency is flooding into the mid-east than ever before. I just had a meeting with some very nice folks from the mid-east who don't mind us being in Iraq at all. Their friends are making money hand over fist supplying goods and services to our troops. Not only are we sending them tankerloads of oil money, we're paying them seven different ways for supplying our country with goods and services. Something wrong with this picture? Why are we so damned near-sighted??? The biggest danger to our country is allowing jobs to escape to countries that are not our allies. China is our biggest threat...and corporations have bought into the Chinese government horse and pony show that paints such a rosy scenario over there. It's a facade...and China's recent restrictions placed on Google are a perfect example of how screwed up things are over there right now. For the first time in the last half decade, I decided to buy an American car again. I would hope you and every other American would consider doing the same. For a very long time, American car manufacturers had their problems, and you were right to stay away. 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. Awhile back you stated that if a car manufacturer made an all-wheel-drive sport sedan that is comparable to what you were driving at the time (an Audi Quattro?), you'd buy it. So now I'm going to hold you to your word: go drive the Cadillac STS AWD or the Chrysler 300M AWD and buy whichever you like better. Either should fit your needs nicely. I went from an Infiniti G35 to a Cadillac STS and have been very happy with the choice. Are you claiming to be a good American or a good investor? I don't think the above suggestion would satisfy both criteria. I leased the car. 39 months, $422/mo (includes tax), $1850 out of pocket. The Chrysler is ugly. $18,308 to have the privilege of driving a Cadillac for 39 months. I'd rather make payments on a boat or summer cabin and have the 2nd home write off. Name me a single car with an MSRP over $40k that you could drive for less than $18,500 over 39 months. Don't forget to include tax! That's dependent on leasing. Most people don't lease. Driving a vehicle over $40k for 39 months isn't a function of the value of the car, it's a function of how many they've sold and how aggressive the financing rates they're willing to offer to get you in the car. The real value in a car is after you've paid it off and drive it another 50,000 miles. That's when the cost/mile goes down. Your cost/mile has to be astronomical. How long do *you* keep a car? And, in order to purchase that car post-lease, you'd be buying a car that's worth 2/3 of the residual. Cadillac will have to write off the loss when it's incurred. Correct. But GMAC takes the hit. And I go buy another car. |
Affording Fuel
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.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. |
Affording Fuel
RCE wrote:
You know what? None of this matters. For every proven crook running a company, I'll find you an honest, hard working example. That's very true. It's also necessary for the functioning of our whole hi-techindustrialized economy. But that doesn't help if it's *your* IRA that's been plundered. thunder wrote: Personally, I'd expect you could find hundreds of honest businessmen for each crook, Cynic that I am, I agree wholeheartedly. ... but there lies the problem. As you know, it's quite competitive out there. Competing with crooks isn't a level playing field. Agreed. If we don't punish the crooks far more heavily than we do, even an honest businessman is tempted to shade the edges. What did Ebbers get? 25 years for an $11 billion fraud and there was talk that it was a "stiff" sentence. 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. Therefor it is in the politicians interest to foster a climate where huge comglomerates operate in murky fiscal webs, large sums can change hands in the fog, and crooked CEOs (or other corporate officers) go unpunished. That's not cynicism, that's the hard cold reality of what is happening today. ...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. Oh, don't worry, they do. You might also want to check out the recent growth in spending on security for gov't offices & officials; and the bloom of laws about threats or assaults on various gov't drones. .....Obviously others here are not. Makes the world go 'round. 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. Should have been taking bets... that's what I do (sometimes). DSK |
Affording Fuel
"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. 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. |
Affording Fuel
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:34:47 -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. 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. |
Affording Fuel
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. DSK |
Affording Fuel
"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? |
Affording Fuel
"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. |
Affording Fuel
"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? |
Affording Fuel
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 |
Affording Fuel
"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." :-) |
Affording Fuel
"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? |
Affording Fuel
"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. |
Affording Fuel
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. |
Affording Fuel
"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. |
Affording Fuel
"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...." :-) |
Affording Fuel
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com