Can I pull this boat?
 

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:32:43 GMT, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:10:04 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:45:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

That's why he likes his trawler...he's a slowski.

Hmm, let's see, you don't like people that like speed, you don't like
people who go slow, you don't like slow trawlers (while claiming to
own a lobster boat!), you don't like anyone who disagrees with your
ignorant positions on issues....

I think I've nailed it, you are just a bitter old *******.

Who, quoting the old Kingston Trio song, "Doesn't like anybody very
much".

Pathetic.

One of my favorites.

===============================

They're rioting in Africa. They're starving in Spain. There's
hurricanes in Florida and Texas needs rain.
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls. The French hate the
Germans. The Germans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch and I don't
like anybody very much!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud for man's been endowed
with a mushroom shaped cloud.
And we know for certain that some lovely day someone will set the
spark off and we will all be blown away.
They're rioting in Africa. There's strife in Iran. What nature doesn't
do to us will be done by our fellow man.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
D.Duck wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:31:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I have a 2005 version of that same truck and it will barely tow
my
Ranger 20' 200 C center console - boat, engine, trailer weigh
in at
just over 5,000 lbs. I get 5 mpg on average over 900 miles of
towing
just last week and the average speed was 50 mph.

Do what you will, but you need a bigger truck.
Hmmm. Apples and oranges, but when I pull Yo Ho, I get about 12
mpg
with my V8 SUV. I think we are pulling about the same weight,
too.
Of course it does.

You are the master.
My old 24 ft cuddy cabin runabout weighed a little over 5,000 lbs,
6300 lbs with aluminum trailer. We trailered it 1400 miles from
CT to
FL behind my 4.7L V8 Tundra, averaging 9 mph at interstate highway
speeds of 65 to 70 mph.

Funny you mention the Tundra. I've been resisting an itch to go
trade the little Ranger in on one. If I cave, I'll go for the 5.7
liter engine (381 hp). It actually is rated to get better mpg
than the 4.7 liter, although not by much.

So far, I've successfully resisted the urge. The little Ranger
does everything I need for now. But ... damn it's tough when you
get bored and need a new toy.

Eisboch

Talked to a guy at a Yosemite campground with a new Tundra. He said
the mileage was about 14 coming from San Diego to Tuolumne Meadows.
The new Hybrid Silverado got a good write up in Car and Driver or
what ever car mag I was reading at the Dermatologist this morning.
20 mpg city / highway.
But where will you get parts when GM goes out of business?
The ever present ray of sunshine.

Just how long do you think the US automakers will last, not as
corporate entities or shells, but as actual companies building actual
products in the United States?

GM is trading at about $11. Ford reported losses yesterday of $9
billion for the quarter. Only god knows what Chrysler's real numbers
are.

Which one do you think will fold first?





Why do I sense that you enjoy seeing major US companies in trouble. What
country are you rooting for to come out on top? Why are you so down on
the US? Why are you so negative in general? According to you, you are
quite well to do. It doesn't make sense that you are prospering while
being so hateful. There are lots of inconsistencies with your stories.


You beat me to it.


The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks and
has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper level
white collar workers, as do many American corporations.

I expect the rug will be pulled out from under Chrysler in a year or two,
and perhaps one or more of its brands or product lines sold off to some
other entity. Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the
management there doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or
not. All three corporations are dumping their blue collar workers in this
country as quickly as they can.

I believe the UAW can share in that blame.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks and
has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper level
white collar workers, as do many American corporations.


The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.


Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.


Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very much
that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks and
has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper level
white collar workers, as do many American corporations.


The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.


Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.


Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very much
that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch

Didn't he run his own company?

Can I pull this boat?
 

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks
and has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper
level white collar workers, as do many American corporations.


The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.


Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.


Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very
much that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch

Didn't he run his own company?

Sure wanted us to believe he did. He said he had a few employees and was
offering unbelievable benefits. Unbelievable is the key word here.

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks and
has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper level
white collar workers, as do many American corporations.


The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.


Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.


Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very much
that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch



Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?




--
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ent=Voting.flv

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...istiangene.flv

Can I pull this boat?
 

On Jul 30, 8:32 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...

The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks and
has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper level
white collar workers, as do many American corporations.

The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.

Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.

Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very much
that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch

Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?

--http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b287/hank100/Videos/?action=view&cu...

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...action=view&cu...

Aw, Harry. those are ridiculous.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks
and has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper
level white collar workers, as do many American corporations.


The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.


Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.


Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very
much that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch



Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?



Look for yourself.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=GM&a...g=m&z=66 &y=0

According to the historical stock price, starting in July, 1998, GM paid a
quarterly dividend of 50 cents every quarter until November of 2005. The
stock price appears to have fluctuated roughly between about $30 to $40 per
share. The quarterly dividend then dropped to 25 cents, but has still been
paid every quarter, the last being in May, 2008.
The decrease in the dividend corresponds to a decline in the stock value,
which happens to correspond to the increase in fuel costs.

So, in GM's case, yes, I'd say they are doing a reasonably good job
adjusting to a very difficult and changing market.

I didn't check Ford. Chrysler is a unique situation, having been acquired
by Mercedes, then recently sold to private investors.
I'd agree that Chrysler has not done well as a company over the past 10
years.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Tim wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:32 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks and
has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper level
white collar workers, as do many American corporations.
The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.
Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.
Nonsense.
I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very much
that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.
You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.
Eisboch
Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?

--http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b287/hank100/Videos/?action=view&cu...

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...action=view&cu...

Aw, Harry. those are ridiculous.


I think they are pretty funny, too.

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks
and has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper
level white collar workers, as do many American corporations.

The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.


Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.

Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very
much that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch


Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?



Look for yourself.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=GM&a...g=m&z=66 &y=0

According to the historical stock price, starting in July, 1998, GM paid a
quarterly dividend of 50 cents every quarter until November of 2005. The
stock price appears to have fluctuated roughly between about $30 to $40 per
share. The quarterly dividend then dropped to 25 cents, but has still been
paid every quarter, the last being in May, 2008.
The decrease in the dividend corresponds to a decline in the stock value,
which happens to correspond to the increase in fuel costs.

So, in GM's case, yes, I'd say they are doing a reasonably good job
adjusting to a very difficult and changing market.

I didn't check Ford. Chrysler is a unique situation, having been acquired
by Mercedes, then recently sold to private investors.
I'd agree that Chrysler has not done well as a company over the past 10
years.

Eisboch




We obviously have different standards by which we judge corporations.

Can I pull this boat?
 

Aw, Harry. those are ridiculous.

You actually click on a link that harry posts? From a guy that wishes people
would commit suicide, I'm sure he doesn't give a rat's ass what he does to
someone's computer. You're a brave man.

--Mike

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Jul 30, 8:32 pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...

The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks
and
has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper
level
white collar workers, as do many American corporations.

The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.

Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.

Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very
much
that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch

Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?

--http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b287/hank100/Videos/?action=view&cu...

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...action=view&cu...

Aw, Harry. those are ridiculous.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..



We obviously have different standards by which we judge corporations.

Probably.

To me the primary responsibility of the management of a corporation like GM
or Ford is to operate in the best interests of it's stockholders. Employees
are obviously important and critical, but the corporation is not designed
specifically for their welfare. It's supposed to make a profit. It's the
way our system works. If they do it right, everyone benefits. A
corporation is not a social service.

It also produces products that are in demand by the market place. If
customers have traditionally wanted big, gas guzzlers because fuel was cheap
in the US, then *that's* what they produce. If they don't, they will lose
market share to someone else that will. Stockholders and employees will
suffer.

Consider Toyota. They started out building small, compact, fuel efficient
(to the standards in the US) cars and trucks.
The US market demanded big, powerful vehicles so Toyota introduced bigger
cars and trucks (like the 381 hp Tundra) in response.

Now with the fairly rapid increase in fuel costs, the market is beginning to
demand smaller, fuel efficient vehicles again.
Companies like GM and Ford are scrambling to deliver, cutting production of
the gas guzzlers.

You just don't like large corporations and you think they are all out screw
everybody.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks
and has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper
level white collar workers, as do many American corporations.

The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.


Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.

Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very
much that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch


Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?



Look for yourself.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=GM&a...g=m&z=66 &y=0

According to the historical stock price, starting in July, 1998, GM paid
a quarterly dividend of 50 cents every quarter until November of 2005.
The stock price appears to have fluctuated roughly between about $30 to
$40 per share. The quarterly dividend then dropped to 25 cents, but has
still been paid every quarter, the last being in May, 2008.
The decrease in the dividend corresponds to a decline in the stock value,
which happens to correspond to the increase in fuel costs.

So, in GM's case, yes, I'd say they are doing a reasonably good job
adjusting to a very difficult and changing market.

I didn't check Ford. Chrysler is a unique situation, having been
acquired by Mercedes, then recently sold to private investors.
I'd agree that Chrysler has not done well as a company over the past 10
years.

Eisboch


We obviously have different standards by which we judge corporations.

GM,. FORD, Etc. Are in deep trouble because of the fixed costs. A major
one is retiree medical costs. Yes they were poorly run. Years ago, when
they had most of the worlds car markets, they gave the unions anything they
asked for. Has come back to bite them in the ass. Toyota, etc. assembling
cars here in the US, have not been here long enough to have much in the
retiree line. GM's union manual is 1000's of pages. defines all the job
categories and what that category can do. Toyotas is about 100 pages and
they can require a worker to what ever job is required. From putting doors
on to sweeping the floor. Must better negotiators. When they should have
layed off people, they kept 1000's on the payroll per union agreements.
They did no work. Bad management is correct.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...


GM,. FORD, Etc. Are in deep trouble because of the fixed costs. A major
one is retiree medical costs. Yes they were poorly run. Years ago, when
they had most of the worlds car markets, they gave the unions anything
they asked for. Has come back to bite them in the ass. Toyota, etc.
assembling cars here in the US, have not been here long enough to have
much in the retiree line. GM's union manual is 1000's of pages. defines
all the job categories and what that category can do. Toyotas is about
100 pages and they can require a worker to what ever job is required.
From putting doors on to sweeping the floor. Must better negotiators.
When they should have layed off people, they kept 1000's on the payroll
per union agreements. They did no work. Bad management is correct.



According to people like Harry, GM and Ford didn't give the unions enough.


Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

GM,. FORD, Etc. Are in deep trouble because of the fixed costs. A major
one is retiree medical costs. Yes they were poorly run. Years ago, when
they had most of the worlds car markets, they gave the unions anything
they asked for. Has come back to bite them in the ass. Toyota, etc.
assembling cars here in the US, have not been here long enough to have
much in the retiree line. GM's union manual is 1000's of pages. defines
all the job categories and what that category can do. Toyotas is about
100 pages and they can require a worker to what ever job is required.
From putting doors on to sweeping the floor. Must better negotiators.
When they should have layed off people, they kept 1000's on the payroll
per union agreements. They did no work. Bad management is correct.



According to people like Harry, GM and Ford didn't give the unions enough.


Eisboch



What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs
at the same time the companies they run are failing.



--
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ent=Voting.flv

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...istiangene.flv

Can I pull this boat?
 

"HK" wrote in message
...



What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs at
the same time the companies they run are failing.



Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record
corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the shareholders
for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the contractual obligations to
current and retired employees?

Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you. It's
how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those with
the most responsibility.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...


What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs at
the same time the companies they run are failing.



Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record
corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the shareholders
for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the contractual obligations to
current and retired employees?

Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you. It's
how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those with
the most responsibility.

Eisboch


Now *that* is funny. Take care of business and business will take care
of you. I'm sure that song plays well to the millions of American
workers who have lost their jobs because of crappy management, and the
millions who have also lost health care benefits, pension benefits, and
much more, despite giving all they had to "the business," and of course,
let's not forget the millions of American workers who have lost
long-held jobs because corporate management determined it would be
"cheaper" to build or service their product in China, India, or wherever.

Take care of the business for which you work, and, if it gets the
chance, the business for which you work will eliminate your job, your
health care, your pension. Or it will simply underfund its pension
liabilities.

Sorry, but I don't believe that "shareholder equity" is any more
valuable than "worker equity." What many corporations in this country
seem to do best is to discard workers like used paper towels.

Note I said many...I did not say all.


Oh...and there is something wrong, very wrong, with the huge disparity
at many corporations between average pay and "executive" compensation.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...


What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs
at the same time the companies they run are failing.



Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record
corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the
shareholders for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the
contractual obligations to current and retired employees?

Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you.
It's how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those
with the most responsibility.

Eisboch


Now *that* is funny. Take care of business and business will take care of
you. I'm sure that song plays well to the millions of American workers who
have lost their jobs because of crappy management, and the millions who
have also lost health care benefits, pension benefits, and much more,
despite giving all they had to "the business," and of course, let's not
forget the millions of American workers who have lost long-held jobs
because corporate management determined it would be "cheaper" to build or
service their product in China, India, or wherever.

Take care of the business for which you work, and, if it gets the chance,
the business for which you work will eliminate your job, your health care,
your pension. Or it will simply underfund its pension liabilities.

Sorry, but I don't believe that "shareholder equity" is any more valuable
than "worker equity." What many corporations in this country seem to do
best is to discard workers like used paper towels.

Note I said many...I did not say all.


Oh...and there is something wrong, very wrong, with the huge disparity at
many corporations between average pay and "executive" compensation.




"Take care of the business" implies doing a competent job whereby the
focus is on the success of the business. If the business is successful, so
will be the employees.

There's a huge change factor going on here .... the emergence of a global
economy. To remain competitive in it, the cost of doing business has to be
carefully analyzed and optimized. Otherwise, the business will ultimately
fail and everyone's out of a job and benefits.

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most about
fat compensation packages are those not earning them.

I never had one, BTW. My reward was the success of the business, and all
of those who participated in whatever capacity benefited proportionally.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Wow. Well, I think I got some good info, maybe a little TOO much. 8O
Look, I am serious, I wouldn’t be taking time out of my schedual to
be here if I wasn’t. I’m new to this stuff, so here I am. I ask
because a good friend of mine is pulling a 25’ shockwave with a newer
F-150 w/ similer specs, with no problems at all. I just don’t want to
get in over my head, literally, at the boat ramp. I know that my
manual says about 13,000 pounds, but the boat just seems big. For
those who think I’m a "Troll", sorry. This is my first time here,
so, don’t know what to say. :? Well thanx for all the usful info.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Tim

wrote:

On Jul 30, 12:36 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jul 29, 7:16 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:

wrote in message

...

Do what you will, but you need a bigger truck.

I have to disagree, I think that truck is more than
enough.

A 29' boat with a F-150?

Are you serious?

Eisboch

Yes. Remember that I " wash the trucks as they come of the
truck" ...remember?
(snarky remark you made
discussing
Vipers, and the T-10 Engine)
My Astro Van can pull my 20' tank of a boat, on a twin axle
trailer.
It also launches, and recovers it as well.
Are the F-150s you get in the states de-tuned or something?
Put your
foot in it.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the engine. It has
everything to do
with the suspension, brakes, and rear end ratio. The F-150
is a light duty
truck. I don't know what the 29' boat weighs, but I
suspect it is at least
5000 lbs ..... probably more when engine, gas and gear are
factored in.
The F 150, although maybe "rated" by Ford to be adequate
... isn't, IMO, for
any long distance, hauling of a boat that size.

Eisboch

I pull a 23 ft. Marquis cuddy on a dual axle trailer with a
1990 Merc.
Colony Park Station wagon. fuel enjected 302 (5.0). The
trailer has
good hydrological surge brakes.

I won't say that it's all it can do to pull the boat but it's
enough
for it. Shifting out of OD and no air, it will pull the boat
at 50-55,
but yes, it sucks plenty of gas, I would say that at 50mph it
will
possibly get 8, maybe 10 mpg....*maybe*

I would say that your f-150 WILL pull that 29 footer, but
conveniently? No, and economically, HECK NO!

Mine will pull it - the question is safely.

Everybody has pretty much hit on the main points including
braking,
but the 5.4 is so emissions laden that it has no power at all
- none.

Biggest mistakek I made was buying that truck.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

GM,. FORD, Etc. Are in deep trouble because of the fixed costs. A
major one is retiree medical costs. Yes they were poorly run. Years
ago, when they had most of the worlds car markets, they gave the unions
anything they asked for. Has come back to bite them in the ass.
Toyota, etc. assembling cars here in the US, have not been here long
enough to have much in the retiree line. GM's union manual is 1000's of
pages. defines all the job categories and what that category can do.
Toyotas is about 100 pages and they can require a worker to what ever
job is required. From putting doors on to sweeping the floor. Must
better negotiators. When they should have layed off people, they kept
1000's on the payroll per union agreements. They did no work. Bad
management is correct.



According to people like Harry, GM and Ford didn't give the unions
enough.


Eisboch

What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs at
the same time the companies they run are failing.



--
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ent=Voting.flv

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...istiangene.flv

And there are many grossly overpaid incompetent blue collar workers under
union protection. Does anyone bother to add up those costs?

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...


What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs
at the same time the companies they run are failing.



Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record
corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the
shareholders for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the
contractual obligations to current and retired employees?

Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you.
It's how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those
with the most responsibility.

Eisboch


Now *that* is funny. Take care of business and business will take care of
you. I'm sure that song plays well to the millions of American workers who
have lost their jobs because of crappy management, and the millions who
have also lost health care benefits, pension benefits, and much more,
despite giving all they had to "the business," and of course, let's not
forget the millions of American workers who have lost long-held jobs
because corporate management determined it would be "cheaper" to build or
service their product in China, India, or wherever.

Take care of the business for which you work, and, if it gets the chance,
the business for which you work will eliminate your job, your health care,
your pension. Or it will simply underfund its pension liabilities.

Sorry, but I don't believe that "shareholder equity" is any more valuable
than "worker equity." What many corporations in this country seem to do
best is to discard workers like used paper towels.

Note I said many...I did not say all.


Oh...and there is something wrong, very wrong, with the huge disparity at
many corporations between average pay and "executive" compensation.

Well ****e for brains, you can do your part to help the poor American worker
by buying American made goods.

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:


It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most about
fat compensation packages are those not earning them.


You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about it?

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:


It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most
about fat compensation packages are those not earning them.


You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about it?


At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated package,
approved and authorized by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors work for the stockholders.

Fun to watch you get fired up so early.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most
about fat compensation packages are those not earning them.

You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about it?


At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated package,
approved and authorized by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors work for the stockholders.

Fun to watch you get fired up so early.

Eisboch




I'm not fired up, Richard. I save "fired up" for the work for which I
get paid, not usenet newsgroups.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most
about fat compensation packages are those not earning them.

You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about it?


At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated
package, approved and authorized by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors work for the stockholders.

Fun to watch you get fired up so early.

Eisboch


I'm not fired up, Richard. I save "fired up" for the work for which I get
paid, not usenet newsgroups.

You get fired up over producing union flyers and handouts?
Richard's right. You are a barrel of laughs.

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most
about fat compensation packages are those not earning them.

You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about it?


At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated
package, approved and authorized by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors work for the stockholders.

Fun to watch you get fired up so early.

Eisboch


I'm not fired up, Richard. I save "fired up" for the work for which I get
paid, not usenet newsgroups.


You know what's great about this country ... and a few other free
democracies?

Freedom.

If one is inspired to become rich ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to become famous .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to take risks ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to minimize risks .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to devote their lives to helping the truly oppressed ....
he/she can.

The threat to freedom is those who feel they have a duty and obligation to
impose *their* way and *their* rules on everybody.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most
about fat compensation packages are those not earning them.
You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about it?

At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated
package, approved and authorized by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors work for the stockholders.

Fun to watch you get fired up so early.

Eisboch

I'm not fired up, Richard. I save "fired up" for the work for which I get
paid, not usenet newsgroups.


You know what's great about this country ... and a few other free
democracies?

Freedom.

If one is inspired to become rich ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to become famous .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to take risks ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to minimize risks .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to devote their lives to helping the truly oppressed ....
he/she can.

The threat to freedom is those who feel they have a duty and obligation to
impose *their* way and *their* rules on everybody.

Eisboch



So you *will* be changing political party affiliation, eh? There is no
greater threat to freedom in this country than the actions and policies
of the Bush Administration and those who support them.

Can I pull this boat?
 

On Jul 29, 8:31*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:24:25 -0400, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:22:27 -0500, SSmokin wrote:

I have a 2002 Ford F-150. *5.4, 4x4 Extended Cab. *I’m looking at a
29’ Cheetah offshore (CX-29). *I know that the truck can pull the boat
from point A to point B, but what about "out of the water, on a steep
ramp"? *Any thoughts? *:o

In my opinion, no.

I have a 2005 version of that same truck and it will barely tow my
Ranger 20' 200 C center console - boat, engine, trailer weigh in at
just over 5,000 lbs. *I get 5 mpg on average over 900 miles of towing
just last week and the average speed was 50 mph.

Do what you will, but you need a bigger truck.

Hmmm. Apples and oranges, but when *I pull Yo Ho, I get about 12 mpg
with my V8 SUV. I think we are pulling about the same weight, too.

Of *course it does.

You are the master.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, you know it! Harry is so much better than anyone else, his truck
will defy the laws of physics for him!!

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most
about fat compensation packages are those not earning them.
You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about
it?

At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated
package, approved and authorized by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors work for the stockholders.

Fun to watch you get fired up so early.

Eisboch

I'm not fired up, Richard. I save "fired up" for the work for which I
get paid, not usenet newsgroups.


You know what's great about this country ... and a few other free
democracies?

Freedom.

If one is inspired to become rich ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to become famous .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to take risks ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to minimize risks .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to devote their lives to helping the truly oppressed
.... he/she can.

The threat to freedom is those who feel they have a duty and obligation
to impose *their* way and *their* rules on everybody.

Eisboch

So you *will* be changing political party affiliation, eh? There is no
greater threat to freedom in this country than the actions and policies of
the Bush Administration and those who support them.



When the time comes. I'll vote for whomever I think will best preserve the
basic, fundamental core values and principles on which this country was
formed. I give you this ..... *Both* major political parties seem to have
gotten way off course.

Or maybe I won't vote.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most
about fat compensation packages are those not earning them.
You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about
it?

At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated
package, approved and authorized by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors work for the stockholders.

Fun to watch you get fired up so early.

Eisboch

I'm not fired up, Richard. I save "fired up" for the work for which I
get paid, not usenet newsgroups.


You know what's great about this country ... and a few other free
democracies?

Freedom.

If one is inspired to become rich ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to become famous .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to take risks ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to minimize risks .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to devote their lives to helping the truly oppressed
.... he/she can.

The threat to freedom is those who feel they have a duty and obligation
to impose *their* way and *their* rules on everybody.

Eisboch

So you *will* be changing political party affiliation, eh? There is no
greater threat to freedom in this country than the actions and policies of
the Bush Administration and those who support them.


What will this pustulated turd brain do after January 20? My guess is he
will shift his focus to the new REPUBLICAN president.

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most
about fat compensation packages are those not earning them.
You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about
it?
At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated
package, approved and authorized by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors work for the stockholders.

Fun to watch you get fired up so early.

Eisboch
I'm not fired up, Richard. I save "fired up" for the work for which I
get paid, not usenet newsgroups.

You know what's great about this country ... and a few other free
democracies?

Freedom.

If one is inspired to become rich ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to become famous .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to take risks ..... he/she can.
If one is inspired to minimize risks .... he/she can.
If one is inspired to devote their lives to helping the truly oppressed
.... he/she can.

The threat to freedom is those who feel they have a duty and obligation
to impose *their* way and *their* rules on everybody.

Eisboch
So you *will* be changing political party affiliation, eh? There is no
greater threat to freedom in this country than the actions and policies of
the Bush Administration and those who support them.



When the time comes. I'll vote for whomever I think will best preserve the
basic, fundamental core values and principles on which this country was
formed. I give you this ..... *Both* major political parties seem to have
gotten way off course.

Or maybe I won't vote.

Eisboch



The "future" of this country is in the hands of blithering uneducated
idiots like Loogy and his pals here, the ones with no imaginations, no
skills, no ability to think in the abstract. I'm glad I'm in my mid 60's
and unlikely to be around long enough to see them destroy with finality
what was once a great country.


--
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ent=Voting.flv

- -

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...istiangene.flv

Can I pull this boat?
 

"HK" wrote in message
...

The "future" of this country is in the hands of blithering uneducated
idiots like Loogy and his pals here, the ones with no imaginations, no
skills, no ability to think in the abstract. I'm glad I'm in my mid 60's
and unlikely to be around long enough to see them destroy with finality
what was once a great country.




Aw, come on. You love it and you know it.

Your life would be pretty dull with nothing to complain about.

Eisboch

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
The "future" of this country is in the hands of blithering uneducated
idiots like Loogy and his pals here, the ones with no imaginations, no
skills, no ability to think in the abstract. I'm glad I'm in my mid 60's
and unlikely to be around long enough to see them destroy with finality
what was once a great country.




Aw, come on. You love it and you know it.

Your life would be pretty dull with nothing to complain about.

Eisboch





Love idiots? I don't think so.

Things are pretty exciting around here at the moment. I'm writing and
will be co-producing and directing three new political television
commercials over the next 30 days, and we might be contracted for a few
more in September and early October. It's been a while since I've been
this directly involved in tv spots. These are just for U.S. House and
Senate candidates...nothing national, but a lot less dreary than the
position papers and daily speeches I usually get contracted to write.

Many years ago, I researched and wrote position papers for a fellow who
was running for federal office. This was in the days before the 'net
and easy access to some varieties of information, so the researching
took a lot of time and effort at actual libraries. The campaign had me
writing paper after paper, on the contingency that certain issues
*might* be raised, and they wanted to be prepared. What a frippin' drag
that was. Wish I had gotten paid by the word or by the pound for the
paper I used up.

Can I pull this boat?
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...


What *I* stated was that the U.S. car makers were poorly managed, with
overpaid white collar mid and upper management. Many large U.S.
corporations grossly overcompensate "management." There have been plenty
of news stories about the tens of millions of dollars paid to top execs
at the same time the companies they run are failing.


Why were they poorly managed if, in the case of GM, they had record
corporate profits and paid regular, consistent dividends to the
shareholders for most of the past ten years? Plus met all the
contractual obligations to current and retired employees?

Take care of the business ..... the business will take care of you.
It's how it works, and there's nothing wrong with big paychecks for those
with the most responsibility.

Eisboch

Now *that* is funny. Take care of business and business will take care of
you. I'm sure that song plays well to the millions of American workers who
have lost their jobs because of crappy management, and the millions who
have also lost health care benefits, pension benefits, and much more,
despite giving all they had to "the business," and of course, let's not
forget the millions of American workers who have lost long-held jobs
because corporate management determined it would be "cheaper" to build or
service their product in China, India, or wherever.

Take care of the business for which you work, and, if it gets the chance,
the business for which you work will eliminate your job, your health care,
your pension. Or it will simply underfund its pension liabilities.

Sorry, but I don't believe that "shareholder equity" is any more valuable
than "worker equity." What many corporations in this country seem to do
best is to discard workers like used paper towels.

Note I said many...I did not say all.


Oh...and there is something wrong, very wrong, with the huge disparity at
many corporations between average pay and "executive" compensation.




"Take care of the business" implies doing a competent job whereby the
focus is on the success of the business. If the business is successful, so
will be the employees.

There's a huge change factor going on here .... the emergence of a global
economy. To remain competitive in it, the cost of doing business has to be
carefully analyzed and optimized. Otherwise, the business will ultimately
fail and everyone's out of a job and benefits.

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the most about
fat compensation packages are those not earning them.

I never had one, BTW. My reward was the success of the business, and all
of those who participated in whatever capacity benefited proportionally.

Eisboch



Eisboch,
You do know you would be more successful discussing this with a rock
than you would discussing this with Harry. At least a rock does not
have a distorted view of the world that will NEVER change.

Can I pull this boat?
 

hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:

It has always been interesting to me that those who complain the
most about fat compensation packages are those not earning them.

You would expect an exec being paid multiple millions to bitch about it?


At that level, his/her compensation was most likely a negotiated
package, approved and authorized by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors work for the stockholders.

Fun to watch you get fired up so early.

Eisboch



I'm not fired up, Richard. I save "fired up" for the work for which I
get paid, not usenet newsgroups.

Since you spend 95% of the day on UseNet you obviously don't work much.

Can I pull this boat?
 

hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
The "future" of this country is in the hands of blithering uneducated
idiots like Loogy and his pals here, the ones with no imaginations,
no skills, no ability to think in the abstract. I'm glad I'm in my
mid 60's and unlikely to be around long enough to see them destroy
with finality what was once a great country.




Aw, come on. You love it and you know it.

Your life would be pretty dull with nothing to complain about.

Eisboch




Love idiots? I don't think so.

Things are pretty exciting around here at the moment. I'm writing and
will be co-producing and directing three new political television
commercials over the next 30 days, and we might be contracted for a few
more in September and early October. It's been a while since I've been
this directly involved in tv spots. These are just for U.S. House and
Senate candidates...nothing national, but a lot less dreary than the
position papers and daily speeches I usually get contracted to write.

Many years ago, I researched and wrote position papers for a fellow who
was running for federal office. This was in the days before the 'net
and easy access to some varieties of information, so the researching
took a lot of time and effort at actual libraries. The campaign had me
writing paper after paper, on the contingency that certain issues
*might* be raised, and they wanted to be prepared. What a frippin' drag
that was. Wish I had gotten paid by the word or by the pound for the
paper I used up.

Harry,
No one believes you Walter Mitty life, so why do you try so hard?

Can I pull this boat?
 

On Jul 31, 8:45*am, hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
The "future" of this country is in the hands of blithering uneducated
idiots like Loogy and his pals here, the ones with no imaginations, no
skills, no ability to think in the abstract. I'm glad I'm in my mid 60's
and unlikely to be around long enough to see them destroy with finality
what was once a great country.

Aw, come on. *You love it and you know it.

Your life would be pretty dull with nothing to complain about.

Eisboch

Love idiots? I don't think so.

Things are pretty exciting around here at the moment. I'm writing and
will be co-producing and directing three new political television
commercials over the next 30 days, and we might be contracted for a few
more in September and early October. It's been a while since I've been
this directly involved in tv spots. These are just for U.S. House and
Senate candidates...nothing national, but a lot less dreary than the
position papers and daily speeches I usually get contracted to write.

Many years ago, I researched and wrote position papers for a fellow who
* was running for federal office. This was in the days before the 'net
and easy access to some varieties of information, so the researching
took a lot of time and effort at actual libraries. The campaign had me
writing paper after paper, on the contingency that certain issues
*might* be raised, and they wanted to be prepared. What a frippin' drag
that was. Wish I had gotten paid by the word or by the pound for the
paper I used up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh damn! The lies get deeper and deeper, as in bull****!
What ads are you co-producing so we can verify any of this?

Can I pull this boat?
 

"SSmokin" wrote in message
news:382692_1e000f0dbeee57eb7fbe79527fdd779d@0000. com...
Wow. Well, I think I got some good info, maybe a little TOO much. 8O
Look, I am serious, I wouldn't be taking time out of my schedual to
be here if I wasn't. I'm new to this stuff, so here I am. I ask
because a good friend of mine is pulling a 25' shockwave with a newer
F-150 w/ similer specs, with no problems at all. I just don't want to
get in over my head, literally, at the boat ramp. I know that my
manual says about 13,000 pounds, but the boat just seems big. For
those who think I'm a "Troll", sorry. This is my first time here,
so, don't know what to say. :? Well thanx for all the usful info.


Well, you could talk to a Ford dealer ..or.. look at this..
http://www.fordvehicles.com/assets/p...F15_towing.pdf

Can I pull this boat?
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

The U.S. auto companies are in trouble because their management sucks
and has sucked for years, and they grossly overpay their mid and upper
level white collar workers, as do many American corporations.

The bulk of layoffs at GM and Ford right now are white collar jobs.


Ford and GM are "multinational" corporations, and the management there
doesn't give a crap whether they make cars in the USA or not.

Nonsense.

I can understand why you think the way you do Harry. I suspect very
much that you never held a job that had a bottom line accountability or
responsibility.

You seem to simply observe and complain about those that do.

Eisboch


Are you maintaining that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been well-run
corporations the last decade or so?



Look for yourself.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=GM&a...g=m&z=66 &y=0

According to the historical stock price, starting in July, 1998, GM paid
a quarterly dividend of 50 cents every quarter until November of 2005.
The stock price appears to have fluctuated roughly between about $30 to
$40 per share. The quarterly dividend then dropped to 25 cents, but has
still been paid every quarter, the last being in May, 2008.
The decrease in the dividend corresponds to a decline in the stock value,
which happens to correspond to the increase in fuel costs.

So, in GM's case, yes, I'd say they are doing a reasonably good job
adjusting to a very difficult and changing market.

I didn't check Ford. Chrysler is a unique situation, having been
acquired by Mercedes, then recently sold to private investors.
I'd agree that Chrysler has not done well as a company over the past 10
years.

Eisboch


We obviously have different standards by which we judge corporations.

Heard on the news yesterday that GM wasn't leasing vehicles anymore due to
poor sales after vehicles turned back in.
Is that the same south of the border?

Can I pull this boat?
 

On Jul 31, 8:45*am, hk wrote:


Things are pretty exciting around here at the moment. I'm writing and
will be co-producing and directing three new political television
commercials over the next 30 days, and we might be contracted for a few
more in September and early October. It's been a while since I've been
this directly involved in tv spots. These are just for U.S. House and
Senate candidates...nothing national, but a lot less dreary than the
position papers and daily speeches I usually get contracted to write.


Bull****... Bull****, bull****, bull****..... excuse me..

LOL..............;)