 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Why don't we declare a War on Speeders and Drunk Drivers??
They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are americans so stupid.? In our last episode, <1168367492.362451.127860@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS broadcast on alt.politics: > They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are > americans so stupid.? Because Bush is a convicted drunk driver and Cheney is a convicted drunk driver many times over.  SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religions in it. -- John Adams > In our last episode, > <1168367492.362451.127860@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because Bush is a convicted drunk driver and Cheney is a convicted drunk > driver many times over. Yeah Bush was barely over the limit when he was a younger.. but Kennedy killed a woman and called the cops 10 hours later after making sure she was dead. >Yeah Bush was barely over the limit when he was a younger.. but Kennedy >killed a woman and called the cops 10 hours later after making sure she was >dead. And Bush's wife ran over her boyfriend and then, during the 2000 election, claimed she wasn't even the one driving the car. >>Yeah Bush was barely over the limit when he was a younger.. but Kennedy >>killed a woman and called the cops 10 hours later after making sure she [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And Bush's wife ran over her boyfriend and then, during the 2000 > election, claimed she wasn't even the one driving the car. Yeah, a traffic accident at the age of 17.... at an intersection in Midland. Her and her friend ran a stop sign and hit her friend (not boyfriend) and he died. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1698.htm She never said she wasnt driving. Whats sad is just one of the ridiculous stories the liberal media broke to cause strife in the election of Bush. But LOL at comparing her to Kennedy... waiting 10 hours to call the police. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 10 Jan 2007 01:00 GMT Someone wrote: >>>Yeah Bush was barely over the limit when he was a younger.. but Kennedy >>>killed a woman and called the cops 10 hours later after making sure she [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >But LOL at comparing her to Kennedy... waiting 10 hours to call the police. Isn't the smell of hypocricy around democrats amazing? Signaturehttp://www.last.fm/user/dwpj65 > Yeah, a traffic accident at the age of 17.... at an intersection in Midland. > Her and her friend ran a stop sign and hit her friend (not boyfriend) and he > died. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1698.htm She never said she > wasnt driving. Whats sad is just one of the ridiculous stories the liberal > media broke to cause strife in the election of Bush. And not a damn thing was done to her. You run a stop sign and kill an innocent person and see if your crime is swept under the rug!!!!! And what do you mean "Her and her friend ran a stop sign"??? Only one person was driving, you idiot, and it was laura the rammer. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving: > > Yeah, a traffic accident at the age of 17.... at an intersection in Midland. > > Her and her friend ran a stop sign and hit her friend (not boyfriend) and he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And not a damn thing was done to her. You run a stop sign and kill an > innocent person and see if your crime is swept under the rug!!!!! Sounds like someone did a website on it: www.ytedk.com . Oh, wait, that's the site for fatass kennedy, a sitting SENATOR who sank his mistress for political gain and used his office to cover it up. > And what do you mean "Her and her friend ran a stop sign"??? Only one > person was driving, you idiot, and it was laura the rammer. They were both in the car, scheisskopf. How could Laura go through the stop sign and her passenger not? Arschloch! SignatureLoco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend defends a known *DRUNK DRIVER*: "Teddy went off a single lane bridge with no guard rail at night. The real killer was the idiot who built the bridge. Next question." --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE June 20th, 2006 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/zlnyz Message ID: qcch92lislem5sqq92qgf7hf9mlm847sgh@4ax.com Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), GoMavs said in rec.autos.driving: > Yeah Bush was barely over the limit when he was a younger.. but Kennedy > killed a woman and called the cops 10 hours later after making sure she was > dead. And he had sobered up. SignatureAunt Judy defends a known *drunk driver*: "Almost all vehicle 'accidents' are due to driver recklessness but the Chappaquidick incident is one instance where it may really have been no ones fault except the idiot who built the bridge." --"Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," 11/10/2005 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9jtjt Msg ID: 1131599968.267321.318380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 10 Jan 2007 01:02 GMT Someone wrote: >Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), GoMavs said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And he had sobered up. And tried to coerce his attorney into providing an alibi.... Must be nice to be a senator. By the way, for the life of me, none of these "Laura Bush" mortards have ever bothered to tell me what political office she held at the time of the accident. I wonder why that is? Signaturehttp://www.last.fm/user/dwpj65 Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) said in rec.autos.driving: > Someone wrote: > >Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), GoMavs said in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > have ever bothered to tell me what political office she held at the > time of the accident. I wonder why that is? Or what political office she ever held, before or after the accident. SignatureAunt Judy defends a known *drunk driver*: "Almost all vehicle 'accidents' are due to driver recklessness but the Chappaquidick incident is one instance where it may really have been no ones fault except the idiot who built the bridge." --"Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," 11/10/2005 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9jtjt Msg ID: 1131599968.267321.318380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com Already been done years ago. Just coming out of a coma idiot? SignatureFor two years, Democrats have demanded more troops on the ground in Iraq. Since liberals will lie and say that Democrats do not want more troops, I point to this story on MSNBC.com filed December 6, 2006: > They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are > americans so stupid.? I was under the impression the states set laws for DUI.... Am I wrong? > They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are > americans so stupid.? > I was under the impression the states set laws for DUI.... Am I wrong? Actually yes. the states set laws but federal highway money is tied to compliance of state law with a federal standard so in effect the states are bribed into complying with the federal standards. nate >>They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are >>americans so stupid.? Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are >americans so stupid.? Penalties for drunk driving have doubled and doubled again in the last 20 years. The acceptable blood alcohol limit has been lowered. Just another crusade, like the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism and the War on Poor People. Has any progress been made in the war on Drunk Driving? Maybe a little. Drugs, terrorism and poverty, not much. > another crusade, like the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism and the > War on Poor People. The war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the ever increasing number of things defined as criminal or violation, and the war on poverty, are all parts of the law is the war on the people. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in rec.autos.driving: > >They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are > >americans so stupid.? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > another crusade, like the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism and the > War on Poor People. Call them all what they are: a War on Freedom and Liberty. > Has any progress been made in the war on Drunk Driving? Maybe a > little. Drugs, terrorism and poverty, not much. Actually, the War of Freedom and Liberty has been quite successful. Look at all the Rights and Freedoms that we have had taken away in the name of "drugs," "terrorism," "poverty," "drunk driving," etc..... SignatureLoco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend defends a known *DRUNK DRIVER*: "Teddy went off a single lane bridge with no guard rail at night. The real killer was the idiot who built the bridge. Next question." --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE June 20th, 2006 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/zlnyz Message ID: qcch92lislem5sqq92qgf7hf9mlm847sgh@4ax.com >Call them all what they are: a War on Freedom and Liberty. BONG! Direct hit! Give that man a cigar! The war on drugs was conceived by Pres. Nixon as a pretense to give poilce more power. It allowed them to knock down doors, it loosened the rules of gathering evidence, it allowed 'selective enforcement' against minorities, etc. etc. etc. A lot of people saw it as a slippery slope, and they've been proven right. The war on terror is the war on drugs on steroids. > On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 18:38:31 -0500, necromancer >>Call them all what they are: a War on Freedom and Liberty. > The war on drugs was conceived by Pres. Nixon as a pretense to give > poilce more power. It allowed them to knock down doors, it loosened > the rules of gathering evidence, it allowed 'selective enforcement' > against minorities, etc. etc. etc. A lot of people saw it as a > slippery slope, and they've been proven right. The war on terror is > the war on drugs on steroids. Not to mention it was Nixon that gave us the 55mph NMSL which turned every driver into either a violator of law or someone who was actively trying to avoid interaction with law enforcement by driving unusually slow and therefore suspicious. With the bogus stats from the NMSL, the safety advocates aka control freaks blossomed. Now we have safety checkpoints where we need to produce our papers for inspection by authority. >Not to mention it was Nixon that gave us the 55mph NMSL which turned >every driver into either a violator of law or someone who was actively >trying to avoid interaction with law enforcement by driving unusually >slow and therefore suspicious. Especially since a national speed limit was not constitutional. The Fed. Govt. didn't just pass a speed limit because it knew it couldnt. Instead it threatened states with the loss of their federal highway money if they didn't each pass their own law. In some western states (Wyoming, Arizona, I think) if you got caught between 55 and 65 it was not the same as speeding, you just got a $5 ticket for wasting gas. >With the bogus stats from the NMSL, the safety advocates aka control >freaks blossomed. Now we have safety checkpoints where we need to produce >our papers for inspection by authority. Yes Nixon was a very strong 'law and order' president. But it's funny--Law and Order presidents like Nixon, Reagan and GW Bush never seem to believe the law applies to -them-. > Especially since a national speed limit was not constitutional. The > Fed. Govt. didn't just pass a speed limit because it knew it couldnt. > Instead it threatened states with the loss of their federal highway > money if they didn't each pass their own law. It worked didn't it? Saved gas and 9,000 lives a year. >> Especially since a national speed limit was not constitutional. The >> Fed. Govt. didn't just pass a speed limit because it knew it couldnt. >> Instead it threatened states with the loss of their federal highway >> money if they didn't each pass their own law. > >It worked didn't it? Saved gas and 9,000 lives a year. Actually that's debatable. It could be just that the price of gas rose sharply so people used less of it (for a while). Also, you probably know lots of 'experts' were predicting a sharp rise in traffic deaths after the speed limit was raised back to 65. But it didn't happen. In the meanwhile both cars and highways had been completely redesigned with all kinds of safety features . . . . most mandated by the Fed. Govt. BTW. It is true, though, that lower average speeds will save some gas. But I bet it's nothing compared to the gas we could have saved if we'd stuck with CAFE standards. >>>Especially since a national speed limit was not constitutional. The >>>Fed. Govt. didn't just pass a speed limit because it knew it couldnt. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > But I bet it's nothing compared to the gas we could have saved if we'd > stuck with CAFE standards. You were doing so well until you got to the last sentence. CAFE is just as misguided as the NMSL... probably has HURT our overall fleet fuel economy by killing off the full sized car and pushing those drivers into truck-based SUVs. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> It is true, though, that lower average speeds will save some gas. >> But I bet it's nothing compared to the gas we could have saved if we'd [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >economy by killing off the full sized car and pushing those drivers into >truck-based SUVs. CAFE was abandoned LONG before the popularization of SUVs. SUVs have been helped by the fact that for a long time SUVs didn't come under the same rules as cars, they were considered light trucks. But if CAFEs had stayed in place, and they had also included SUVs, we'd be much better off today. > >> It is true, though, that lower average speeds will save some gas. > >> But I bet it's nothing compared to the gas we could have saved if we'd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > CAFE was abandoned LONG before the popularization of SUVs. Not true, it is still in effect. > SUVs have > been helped by the fact that for a long time SUVs didn't come under > the same rules as cars, they were considered light trucks. Exactly. > But if > CAFEs had stayed in place, and they had also included SUVs, we'd be > much better off today. Really? Then people would simply be driving something else - crew cab pickups? - as personal vehicles. nate > CAFE was abandoned LONG before the popularization of SUVs. SUVs have > been helped by the fact that for a long time SUVs didn't come under > the same rules as cars, they were considered light trucks. But if > CAFEs had stayed in place, and they had also included SUVs, we'd be > much better off today. CAFE is still law today. It has not been repealed or rolled back. >> CAFE was abandoned LONG before the popularization of SUVs. SUVs have >> been helped by the fact that for a long time SUVs didn't come under [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >CAFE is still law today. It has not been repealed or rolled back. You've been misinformed. From the NHTSA's website: >To meet the goal of doubling the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by >1985 (to 27.5 mpg), Congress set fuel economy standards for some of the intervening [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >lowered. Thereafter, in MY 1990, the passenger car standard was amended to 27.5 > mpg, which it has remained at this level. >>> CAFE was abandoned LONG before the popularization of SUVs. SUVs have >>> been helped by the fact that for a long time SUVs didn't come under >>> the same rules as cars, they were considered light trucks. But if >>> CAFEs had stayed in place, and they had also included SUVs, we'd be >>> much better off today. >>CAFE is still law today. It has not been repealed or rolled back. > You've been misinformed. From the NHTSA's website: 1) extreme technicalities will get you no where. 2) You were still dead wrong. 3) CAFE was 27.5mpg in 1985, it's 27.5mpg today. >>To meet the goal of doubling the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by >>1985 (to 27.5 mpg), Congress set fuel economy standards for some of the intervening [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>lowered. Thereafter, in MY 1990, the passenger car standard was amended to 27.5 >> mpg, which it has remained at this level. >>>CAFE is still law today. It has not been repealed or rolled back. > >> You've been misinformed. From the NHTSA's website: > >1) extreme technicalities will get you no where. Nor will snottiness, young fella. 8^) >2) You were still dead wrong. Meaning: "We disagree." >3) CAFE was 27.5mpg in 1985, it's 27.5mpg today. Beside the point, actually. The idea of CAFE standards is that they would be, you should pardon the expression, -progressive-. By the 90s, we were told, cars would be getting in the mid-30s and we would have eliminated our need for middle east oil. (Actually at the time were were importing very little of our oil from the middle east, today it's about a third.) > >>>CAFE is still law today. It has not been repealed or rolled back. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > were were importing very little of our oil from the middle east, today > it's about a third.) ...and, of course, the whole idea that you can legislatively mandate technological breakthroughs is still ludicrous today. nate > ...and, of course, the whole idea that you can legislatively mandate > technological breakthroughs is still ludicrous today. > > nate No "breakthrough" is needed you idiot. You just make smaller cars and use weaker engines. Of course it would help if the speed limit was lowered too. Anyway, we could double gas mileage of new cars overnight and it wouldn't cost a thing. THINK >>...and, of course, the whole idea that you can legislatively mandate >>technological breakthroughs is still ludicrous today. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lowered too. Anyway, we could double gas mileage of new cars overnight > and it wouldn't cost a thing. THINK Wow, you are astonishingly stupid. How can we double gas mileage overnight without a technological breakthrough. As an engineer, you weak-minded liberal tree-huggers who AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT THERE IS NO GODDAMNED CONSPIRACY really piss me off. It astonishes me that people as dumb as you aren't sterilized in grade school. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >Wow, you are astonishingly stupid. Wow, you are astonishingly rude! > How can we double gas mileage >overnight without a technological breakthrough. As an engineer, you >weak-minded liberal tree-huggers who AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT >THERE IS NO GODDAMNED CONSPIRACY really piss me off. Depends on what you mean by 'conspiracy'. We could tax cars by engine size, like they do in Europe. People would buy smaller cars. We could tax gas up the wazoo, like they do in Europe, and people would buy smaller cars and consider public transportation more often (instead we raise the gas prices and the money goes to the oil corps. who run our government). Pres. Bush announced (to great fanfare in the press) that he was going to funnel tens of millions into hydrogen technology. What nobody mentioned is that this money was coming -out- of govt. research into electrics and hybrids, technology that is available NOW instead of 30 years from now, if at all. If that's not a conspiracy, what would you call it? >It astonishes me that people as dumb as you aren't sterilized in grade >school. You are showing me that you aren't interested in a serious discussion, just looking for excuses to sling insults at 'liberals'. If I was you, especially these days, I'd want to show people that 'intelligent Republican' is not an oxymoron. >>Wow, you are astonishingly stupid. > > Wow, you are astonishingly rude! Wow, you're astonishingly new here. If you're going to reply to SADDAM, it's not worth being polite, because it is neither polite nor coherent. >>How can we double gas mileage >>overnight without a technological breakthrough. As an engineer, you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > size, like they do in Europe. > People would buy smaller cars. I doubt it. CAFE hasn't worked, nor have gas-guzzler taxes, which make far more sense than a displacement tax anyway... > We > could tax gas up the wazoo, like they do in Europe, DING DING DING! GIVE THAT MAN A COOKIE! > and people would > buy smaller cars and consider public transportation more often > (instead we raise the gas prices and the money goes to the oil corps. > who run our government). Eh, what would *likely* happen is whoever proposed the higher taxes would be voted out of office the next go-'round. But that doesn't change the fact that making more fuel efficient vehicles ECONOMICALLY VIABLE is the only way we'll ever get them. Simply legislating "give us more fuel efficient cars!" is doomed to failure, because the truth is that the general public wants big cars, and needs a real incentive to move away from them. And assertions of various nutjobs to the contrary, there is no current viable technology that will provide markedly better economy than we're getting out of vehicles now, at least not without huge tradeoffs in range, performance, cost of operation, or all three. > Pres. Bush announced (to great fanfare in the press) that he was going > to funnel tens of millions into hydrogen technology. What nobody > mentioned is that this money was coming -out- of govt. research into > electrics and hybrids, technology that is available NOW instead of 30 > years from now, if at all. If that's not a conspiracy, what would you > call it? Stupidity. Hydrogen isn't even a fuel; it's simply an energy storage technology much like a battery. It takes more energy to make a usable hydrogen fuel than you get out of it by burning it. If I were a betting man, I'd be betting on fuel cells. But something else might win the race - some new ultra-light battery or ultracapacitor for instance. >>It astonishes me that people as dumb as you aren't sterilized in grade >>school. > > You are showing me that you aren't interested in a serious discussion, > just looking for excuses to sling insults at 'liberals'. No, I'm slinging insults at SADDAM who is either an extraordinarily gifted troll or a barely functional moron who has enough of an idiot savant streak that it's figured out how to post to Usenet. > If I was > you, especially these days, I'd want to show people that 'intelligent > Republican' is not an oxymoron. Indeed. However, I think it's time to kill the Republican party and start over with a new, real conservative party without all the religious right nutjobs, neoconservative imperialists, and ignorant rednecks and simply concentrate on fiscal conservatism, small government, and minimal intrusion on personal liberties. The name "Republican" has too many negative connotations to be viable, at least among thinking people. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > No "breakthrough" is needed you idiot. You just make smaller cars and > > use weaker engines. Of course it would help if the speed limit was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > weak-minded liberal tree-huggers who AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT > THERE IS NO GODDAMNED CONSPIRACY really piss me off. That's right. Don't address the issue - just be an infant and call people names. HAHAHA. Now if you can, explain why smaller cars and weaker engines and lower speeds would NOT result in huge fuel savings. If you were an engineer (which you're not) it would be obviously true. >>>No "breakthrough" is needed you idiot. You just make smaller cars and >>>use weaker engines. Of course it would help if the speed limit was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > weaker engines and lower speeds would NOT result in huge fuel savings. > If you were an engineer (which you're not) it would be obviously true. Because people won't buy them without an economic incentive to do so. They'll just keep the vehicles they have now. Which, actually, would not be a bad thing from an ecological standpoint (it takes FAR more energy to make a vehicle than operate it) but would have the minor drawback of killing the entire automotive industry (of course, body shops and engine rebuilders would be doing pretty well for themselves.) Oh, and your slander is duly noted. Of course I'll never be able to collect damages from you because a) you have no assets and b) nobody actually believes you anyway. nate (you know you're bored when it's Friday night and responding to SADDAM seems like a good idea. I hope the girlie gets home from work soon...) Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > That's right. Don't address the issue - just be an infant and call > > people names. HAHAHA. Now if you can, explain why smaller cars and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > drawback of killing the entire automotive industry (of course, body > shops and engine rebuilders would be doing pretty well for themselves.) No reason to think it would kill the automotive industry. Many people would love to have a car giving 50 mpg. And there are many other ways to entice the car buyer to opt for small cars. As i've mentioned before, we could base penalties for moving violations on the listed weight of the vehicle or institute an annual gas tax based on vehicle weights. THINK >>>That's right. Don't address the issue - just be an infant and call >>>people names. HAHAHA. Now if you can, explain why smaller cars and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No reason to think it would kill the automotive industry. Many people > would love to have a car giving 50 mpg. No, they wouldn't. Otherwise everyone would be driving them. They SAY they want them, but they're not willing to make the tradeoffs in size and performance. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Nate Nagel said in rec.autos.driving: << reply limited to r.a.d >> > Wow, you are astonishingly stupid. Firm grasp of the obvious, Nate... :) > How can we double gas mileage > overnight without a technological breakthrough. As an engineer, you > weak-minded liberal tree-huggers who AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT > THERE IS NO GODDAMNED CONSPIRACY really piss me off. THere is no way. Sure, you could make smaller cars, but as history has shown us, people won't buy them or will only buy them untill the latest OPEC hissy-fit is over and gas prices return to normal. BTW, I seem to remember reading somewhere (don't ask where, its been long forgotten; just the number is remembered) that about only 30% of the fuel that goes into an engine actually gets burned. If that's true, sounds like there are some breakthroughs remaining. The thought of a 65MPG Suburban is appealing since it would blow one of SADDAM's pet causes out of the water.... > It astonishes me that people as dumb as you aren't sterilized in grade > school. <going political> While I generally oppose abortion, SADDAM is a walking advertisement for abortion and genetic testing of fetuses to determine if the baby is going to be an imbicle like SADDAM and thus making abortion mandatory..... </going political> SignatureLoco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend admits to being a red light runner: "The cameras don't catch everyone. I have never been nailed for this." Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 5/9/06 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/ee4wq Message ID: 9nb162p1idam39jhmv5s2g0b7booh67stc@4ax.com > BTW, I seem to remember reading somewhere (don't ask where, its been > long forgotten; just the number is remembered) that about only 30% of > the fuel that goes into an engine actually gets burned. In a rough estimate, tradityionally, 1/3 of potential energy in fuel (HHV) goes to powering car, 1/3 is lost via radiator, 1/3 goes out the exhaust.. Nearly all fuel is burned. Most gain can be made by cutting drag (including under the car,) and increasing efficiency of engine, gearboxes, cooling fans and other components (How about having the exhaust heat power the AC, like a gas fridge?) >>2) You were still dead wrong. > Meaning: "We disagree." No, you're dead wrong. CAFE has been effect since it came into effect and continues to be as I type this. >>3) CAFE was 27.5mpg in 1985, it's 27.5mpg today. > Beside the point, actually. The idea of CAFE standards is that they > would be, you should pardon the expression, -progressive-. By the > 90s, we were told, cars would be getting in the mid-30s and we would > have eliminated our need for middle east oil. (Actually at the time > were were importing very little of our oil from the middle east, today > it's about a third.) You have all the intelligence of a typical congress critter when it comes to technical matters, less than zero. We could stop importing oil from middle east entirely by simply eliminating the taxpayer funded military support. This would encourage oil companies to seek raw materials from more stable nations in the western hemisphere. >We could stop importing oil from middle east entirely by simply >eliminating the taxpayer funded military support. This would encourage >oil companies to seek raw materials from more stable nations in the >western hemisphere. Not likely. It would just lead to oil companies buying from a slightly different set of Islamic dictatorships. Getting oil from them is easier than getting oil from a South American kleptocracy or worse, a North American NIMBY country. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>2) You were still dead wrong. > >> Meaning: "We disagree." > >No, you're dead wrong. CAFE has been effect since it came into effect and >continues to be as I type this. Conservative argumentation technique no. 1--you aren't wrong so long as you don't admit you're wrong. If the other guy is right, you can make him wrong by repeating over and over that he's wrong. Just insisting over and over that someone is wrong doesn't make him wrong. Except in your mind. >You have all the intelligence of a typical congress critter when it comes >to technical matters, less than zero. Argumentation technique no. 2 -- If you can't win with facts, win with insults. You have shown you're not interested in a serious debate. If we're just going to have an insult contest, then I concede. I know when I'm beat. 8^) >We could stop importing oil from middle east entirely by simply >eliminating the taxpayer funded military support. This would encourage >oil companies to seek raw materials from more stable nations in the >western hemisphere. Like . . . Venezuela? 8^D Actually, the fastest, simplest and least painful way to reduce reliance on Middle East oil (or foreign oil in general) would have been to attack the consumption side of the equation through conservation measures. Buying from friendlier sources (Mexico, Norway, etc.) could help, but buying a lot -less- would help a lot more. We use at least twice as much energy per person as any other developed country, including very cold countries like Sweden and Norway, and very big countries like Australia (and Canada is -both- big and cold). Over a several-year period we could easily have lowered our consumption by at least a third with very little pain. This was the original goal of PROGRESSIVE CAFE standards. Every president since Carter has announced a plan to address fuel consumption, but Carter was the only one who actually did anything about it. (Well, at least he -tried-.) However, for decades now the top priority of US energy policy has not really been to improve national security and our economy by reducing dependance on foreign oil, it has been to maximize oil company profits. We have never really used very much oil from Iraq, we just want to -control- that oil. It's been suggested that the primary motive of Bush41's Gulf War was to keep Iraqi oil off the world market for a few years, to allow prices to rise. The purpose of Bush43's war is to secure the oil for the American companies who got him elected. Is it just a coincidence that the 35 top people in the Bush admin--Bush himself, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc. etc.--all came from the oil industry? >>>>2) You were still dead wrong. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Just insisting over and over that someone is wrong doesn't make him > wrong. Except in your mind. Except in this instance, you *are* wrong - CAFE is still very much in effect. Period, end of story - even though it should have been abolished once it was clear it wasn't working. > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > was the only one who actually did anything about it. (Well, at least > he -tried-.) But it is a bullshit "solution" that doesn't work. All it does is make people look for alternatives to cars - ones that consume MORE. Also, you are not addressing the real problem - the issue is not the MPG of each individual car, but consumption of fossil fuels. So why are we doing ANYTHING except taxing fossil fuels? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>2) You were still dead wrong. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as you don't admit you're wrong. If the other guy is right, you can > make him wrong by repeating over and over that he's wrong. Damn you are a thickheaded moron. > Just insisting over and over that someone is wrong doesn't make him > wrong. Except in your mind. CAFE has not been adbandoned, repealed, or anything else. >>You have all the intelligence of a typical congress critter when it comes >>to technical matters, less than zero. > Argumentation technique no. 2 -- If you can't win with facts, win with > insults. I've already 'won' on the facts. > You have shown you're not interested in a serious debate. If we're > just going to have an insult contest, then I concede. I know when I'm > beat. 8^) CAFE is and has been in effect since it first went into effect. That's the fact. You are wrong. Period, end of story. >>We could stop importing oil from middle east entirely by simply >>eliminating the taxpayer funded military support. This would encourage >>oil companies to seek raw materials from more stable nations in the >>western hemisphere. > Like . . . Venezuela? 8^D Actually, the fastest, simplest and least > painful way to reduce reliance on Middle East oil (or foreign oil in > general) would have been to attack the consumption side of the > equation through conservation measures. Buying from friendlier > sources (Mexico, Norway, etc.) could help, but buying a lot -less- > would help a lot more. I don't feel the need to cure you of all your ignorance, so get google out and teach yourself. Here's a hint, there is more oil in the americas profitable at todays prices than saudi arabia several times over. > We use at least twice as much energy per person as any other developed > country, including very cold countries like Sweden and Norway, and > very big countries like Australia (and Canada is -both- big and cold). Cite? > Over a several-year period we could easily have lowered our > consumption by at least a third with very little pain. Cite? > This was the > original goal of PROGRESSIVE CAFE standards. The goal was to get rid of the 'gas guzzler', the large passenger sedan. Everyone knew that CAFE standards could not be achieved without considerable downsizing. The progressive steps were to prevent putting the big three out of business. > Every president since > Carter has announced a plan to address fuel consumption, but Carter > was the only one who actually did anything about it. (Well, at least > he -tried-.) CAFE legislation I believe started when Ford was still president. > However, for decades now the top priority of US energy policy has not > really been to improve national security and our economy by reducing > dependance on foreign oil, it has been to maximize oil company > profits. Hence the tax payer funded US military to secure the cheap to extract oil and keep iraq's taps off. >>> It is true, though, that lower average speeds will save some gas. >>> But I bet it's nothing compared to the gas we could have saved if we'd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >CAFE was abandoned LONG before the popularization of SUVs. CAFE is still in place. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Also, you probably know lots of 'experts' were predicting a sharp rise > in traffic deaths after the speed limit was raised back to 65. But it > didn't happen. In the meanwhile both cars and highways had been > completely redesigned with all kinds of safety features . . . . most > mandated by the Fed. Govt. BTW. That issue was conclusively settled back in 1974 when we went to the 55 overnight and immediately highway deaths dropped by 9,000 a year. The raising of speed limits in the 90s was a gradual thing and occurred while other safety measures were being implemented and thus nothing was proven. THINK In article <1168532699.550010.161390@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Also, you probably know lots of 'experts' were predicting a sharp rise > > in traffic deaths after the speed limit was raised back to 65. But it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That issue was conclusively settled back in 1974 when we went to the 55 > overnight and immediately highway deaths dropped by 9,000 a year. The And passenger-miles travelled also dropped and they changed they way they kept the stats. > raising of speed limits in the 90s was a gradual thing and occurred > while other safety measures were being implemented and thus nothing was > proven. THINK Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > In article <1168532699.550010.161390@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> > > That issue was conclusively settled back in 1974 when we went to the 55 > > overnight and immediately highway deaths dropped by 9,000 a year. The > > And passenger-miles travelled also dropped and they changed they way > they kept the stats. Passenger miles are not the issue, you numbskull. Vehicle miles are what matters and they dropped just 2% from 1973 to 1974 while fatalities dropped 16%. And they didn't change the way they kept stats so stop making things up. Dead is dead, you idiot. In article <1168566523.847614.308310@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> wrote: > > In article <1168532699.550010.161390@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <betaxxx@earthlink.net> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > what matters and they dropped just 2% from 1973 to 1974 while > fatalities dropped 16%. As I said, they changed they way they kept the stats. > And they didn't change the way they kept stats so stop making things > up. Dead is dead, you idiot. Signature'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) > In some western states (Wyoming, Arizona, I think) if you got caught > between 55 and 65 it was not the same as speeding, you just got a $5 > ticket for wasting gas. OH, NO! Speeding IS murder!!! lmao The only appropriate response would be the death penalty. I am kidding around. "Speeders" is a murderer, I bet he speeds everyday. I am also, willing to bet he is a crappy driver who drives recklessly, even if it's occasionally, he needs the death penalty, lol. Speeder thinks dopamine is in cough medicine and that brings you 'up'. lmao What a fool! I seriously think he is a disinformation tool trying to lead public opinion for the state. When we know NO ONE can keep up with the millions of laws THEY are forcing on us. We are NOT your slaves. We are human beings. What did we do and how did we survive as a free nation before DUI was made supposedly equivalent with MURDER? Don't be a sucker for this utterly BASE brainwashing. This is the big fascist takeover that these scum have been looking forward to for a few hundred years, if not thousands of years. This IS the big show people. TYRANNY is at your doorstep. Tyranny is in your living room, it's in bed with you, it's in your cellphones, tyranny is in the black box under the dash of your car.You are a big person now, you can think for yourself. You are mature enough and responsible enough to decide for yourselves and make your own decisions. Just make the right one. Why give up your freedom to two-bit, snuff film syndicate scumbags? Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), YES to Freedom - NO to CFR! said in rec.autos.driving: > "Speeders" is a murderer, I bet he speeds everyday. I am also, willing > to bet he is a crappy driver who drives recklessly, even if it's > occasionally, he needs the death penalty, lol. Well, we do have it documented here in r.a.d that SADDAM has admitted to speeding, red light running, driving with bald tires (or "tars," as it calls them), an inoperative emergency brake and inoperative dashboard lights among other safety hazards in its POS and it apparently was involved in a fatal accident about 3.5 years ago..... Signature-- Loco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend (a.k.a. SADDAM) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in rec.autos.driving: > >Call them all what they are: a War on Freedom and Liberty. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > slippery slope, and they've been proven right. The war on terror is > the war on drugs on steroids. Not only that, but it (the war on drugs) has given the police free reign to commit armed robbery on our highways (especially of minorities). One need only look at Camden County, GA where the Sheriff rakes in literally millions from traffic stops and siezing people's cash if they can't prove that the money was obtained legitimately. Signature"I love this country... ...and the freedoms we used to have..." --George Carlin > The war on drugs was conceived by Pres. Nixon as a pretense to give > poilce more power. It allowed them to knock down doors, it loosened > the rules of gathering evidence, it allowed 'selective enforcement' > against minorities, etc. etc. etc. A lot of people saw it as a > slippery slope, and they've been proven right. The war on terror is > the war on drugs on steroids. The war on drugs was to give the gubment the opportunity to seize peoples' property. Now, if Jerry Jones want to build a football stadium at taxpayers expense he just teams up with the city and seize peoples' land through "imminent domain". We have no property rights 'living' under corporate fascism. Speeders and Drunk Drivers is an a.shole. He is probably the murderer and he probably molests children too, he is a fool. Except for when he says terrorism and 911 is a hoax and he is right, there. ..because one drives 5 miles over the speed limit, that makes them a murderer??? f.ck YOU! You are scum. You are are scummy fool. Blazing, Laser wrote: > >They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are > >americans so stupid.? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Has any progress been made in the war on Drunk Driving? Maybe a > little. Drugs, terrorism and poverty, not much. Wars on human behaviour tend to be lost. Graham Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in rec.autos.driving: > Blazing, Laser wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Wars on human behaviour tend to be lost. Thank GOD for that! Signature"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?" --George Carlin >Wars on human behaviour tend to be lost. Interesting proposition, but I'm not sure it's true. The wars on drugs, crime and terror didn't work because they were ulterior motives. But look at the war on tobacco! We went from a nation of 85% smokers to somethng like 7%, simply through -education-! > >They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are > >americans so stupid.? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Has any progress been made in the war on Drunk Driving? Maybe a > little. Drugs, terrorism and poverty, not much. Yes - the war on drunk driving has helped a lot. Everyone now knows it's a serious crime and people do go to prison for it esp if they kill someone. That has scared a lot of drunks into not driving . Having said that, penalties are still not stiff enough. Even first time offenders should get a five year license suspension and if they're caught driving then they do the five years in prison. That would just about eliminate drunk driving. >> >They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are >> >americans so stupid.? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > caught driving then they do the five years in prison. That would just > about eliminate drunk driving. Yeah -- more laws will get people to think rationally when they're drunk. Jim Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 10 Jan 2007 12:46 GMT Someone wrote: >> >They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are >> >americans so stupid.? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >it's a serious crime and people do go to prison for it esp if they kill >someone. That has scared a lot of drunks into not driving . Having Laughing my a.s off. It has? Reminds me of the guy who used to live beside me. One day he came outside with a 24 oz budweiser in his hand, headed for his car. We chatted for a few minutes, then he informed me he was late for his court-ordered alcohol abuse program. >said that, penalties are still not stiff enough. Even first time >offenders should get a five year license suspension and if they're >caught driving then they do the five years in prison. That would just >about eliminate drunk driving. Signaturegpstard (gpsman@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:" (Message-ID: <1167151218.287827.24230@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>) Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident? "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6> > > Has any progress been made in the war on Drunk Driving? Maybe a > > little. Drugs, terrorism and poverty, not much. > > Yes - the war on drunk driving has helped a lot. So your question of why isn't there a war on drunk drivers was a lie to begin with, since you admit there is a war on drunk driving. Ok, got that out of the way, we know you're a liar. > Everyone now knows > it's a serious crime and people do go to prison for it esp if they kill [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > caught driving then they do the five years in prison. That would just > about eliminate drunk driving. What possible incentive would the states have to do this? They make a ton of money on alcohol taxes, and throwing people who are barely over an arbitrary limit for years costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars won't put a dent into dd accidents at all. The REAL problem, for those who might be reading this that can actually comprehend, are the repeat offenders who are caught at 0.15+ (often WAY of that). These are the guys that will be killing others, not the guy who had 2 or 3 beers and is at 0.08. >Yes - the war on drunk driving has helped a lot. Everyone now knows >it's a serious crime and people do go to prison for it esp if they kill [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >caught driving then they do the five years in prison. That would just >about eliminate drunk driving. In Norway the first DUI offense brings an automatic 6-month jail sentence. Does that eliminate drunk driving? Not at all. I'm not saying that drunk drivers should go free, but we've doubled the punishments already and then doubled them again. We're reaching diminishing returns. We can spend the money better in educating people (as we did so successfully with tobacco!) Educating kids in high school about how alcohol works on the brain. Educating drivers about the dangers, and also how much it will cost them if they get caught drunk driving. We can also return to seeing alcoholism (and all addiction) as a health problem, not a crime problem. Punishment is reactive, it's after the fact. We should be looking for pro-active solutions to problems like this. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in rec.autos.driving: > I'm not saying that drunk drivers should go free, but we've doubled > the punishments already and then doubled them again. We're reaching [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about the dangers, and also how much it will cost them if they get > caught drunk driving. Now, all we need is to educate drivers on how to drive defensively and how to react when they encounter a drunk driver (and I don't mean calling 911) and we'd be all set..... SignatureLoco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend admits to being a red light runner: "The cameras don't catch everyone. I have never been nailed for this." Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 5/9/06 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/ee4wq Message ID: 9nb162p1idam39jhmv5s2g0b7booh67stc@4ax.com Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 10 Jan 2007 01:16 GMT Someone wrote: >They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are >americans so stupid.? Fixed the subject for you, faggot. Signaturegpstard (gpsman@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:" (Message-ID: <1167151218.287827.24230@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>) Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident? "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6> Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 10 Jan 2007 01:23 GMT Someone wrote: >They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Why are >americans so stupid.? By the way, moron, speeders and drunk drivers aren't a threat in the least to me. See, I understand this concept known as "defensive driving." It's a really neat concept; it allows me to escape, unscathed, from situations where other people manage to commit suicide. Of course, if you're stupid enough to believe that adherence to a speed limit is the way to obtain vehicular safety, then you're stupid enough to prove Darwin right. I *LOVE* when people use their vehicles to prove the validity of Mr. Darwin's theory. Signaturegpstard (gpsman@driversmail.com) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:" (Message-ID: <1167151218.287827.24230@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>) Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident? "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Joshua Calvert <joshua_l_calvert@hotmail.com> demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy": Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event. Message-ID: <Xns970A68202F1C5joshualcalverthotmai@68.6.19.6> I'll offer an answer by splitting up your questions. > They are a far far bigger threat to you than terrorists. Because we'd lose that war, just like the wars on drugs, poverty, smoking (declared by many city governments), and terrorism. Human nature doesn't permit wars of that type to be won. >Why are > americans so stupid.? 40-odd years of dumbing down, political correctness, tabloid fodder posing as news, lawsuits out the a.s, fat cat politicians from both parties, shall I add more? Americans are trained that way. Just glad to help. "When I was a kid, this was a free country." - G. Gordon Liddy Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), MLOM said in rec.autos.driving: << reply limited to r.a.d. >> > I'll offer an answer by splitting up your questions. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > smoking (declared by many city governments), and terrorism. Human > nature doesn't permit wars of that type to be won. << Topic drifting >> Thinking of the War on Freedom and smoking, I was watching an old movie the other day (Smokey and the Bandit II, IIRC) and theere was a scene that caught my attention when Gleason's character pulled out a smoke with the Marlboro logo clearly visible on the pack. Could you imagine if they tried to make that movie today? Just the mere mention of smoking would have the anit-smoking nanny-nazis wanting to ban the flick - or at the very least, give it an XXX rating for daring to feature a smoking character.... > >Why are > > americans so stupid.? > > 40-odd years of dumbing down, political correctness, tabloid fodder > posing as news, lawsuits out the a.s, fat cat politicians from both > parties, shall I add more? Americans are trained that way. And of trying to make everything so stupefyingly safe that most people wouldn't know how to handle an adverse situation to - literally - save their lives. Witness the guy who got lost in the woods on the left coast and froze to death last month. > Just glad to help. > > "When I was a kid, this was a free country." - G. Gordon Liddy Signature"I love this country... ...and the freedoms we used to have..." --George Carlin Please give us your definition of "speeder." Also, in what nation do you live? That info might help. (FWIW: All my driving has been in tNorth America and Europe.) Forgot to add: Slipping in the shower is more dangerous to Americans than terrorists, too! > Please give us your definition of "speeder." > > Also, in what nation do you live? That info might help. > > (FWIW: All my driving has been in tNorth America and Europe.) > Forgot to add: Slipping in the shower is more dangerous to Americans > than terrorists, too! If you have tunnel vision, perhaps. Those who aren't so myopic understand that terrorism has more of an effect than just deaths of people. "Only" 3000 or so people died in the 9/11 attacks, but those 60 minutes affected our economy for 2 years. Million of people were affected adversely because of the attacks. People who have nothing to do with the WTC or New York, Pennsylvania, or the Pentagon. Entire industries (airlines) were affected. New laws and regulations that affect everybody were put in place because of it. Billions of dollars spent. You slipping while bending over to pick up your soap and bashing your head on your tile affects you, and perhaps your immediate family. > If you have tunnel vision, perhaps. Those who aren't so myopic > understand that terrorism has more of an effect than just deaths of > people. "Only" 3000 or so people died in the 9/11 attacks, but those > 60 minutes affected our economy for 2 years. Million of people were > affected adversely because of the attacks. And look who made money from them. Hell the vice president alone made millions from tama-flu(sp?) with the hyped up bird flu BS. > > Forgot to add: Slipping in the shower is more dangerous to Americans > > than terrorists, too! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > affect everybody were put in place because of it. Billions of dollars > spent. And what are the economic effects of car crashes.? The property damage and medical costs run into the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. So whether you look at lives or injuries or costs, car crashes dwarf terrorism. THINK > > > Forgot to add: Slipping in the shower is more dangerous to Americans > > > than terrorists, too! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And what are the economic effects of car crashes.? Very little outside of the people who are in the crash, which is clearly the point. It took one event in 2001 to affect us every day of our lives, crippling the economy for 2 years. There was a wreck on an adjecent highway today on my way to work, it didn't affect me one bit. Of course, one nuke going off in the next 50 years is really going to ruin your day. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS, a lover of gay kid porn and sex with farm animals spewed forth in rec.autos.driving: << ECP removed >> > And what are the economic effects of car crashes.? The property damage > and medical costs run into the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. ¿¿Gotta cite for that?? Otherwise, STFU. > So whether you look at lives or injuries or costs, car crashes dwarf > terrorism. THINK Terrorism = Crime, Death in and auto accident = Darwin at work making the world better for the rest of us. You think, you idiot. SignatureAunt Judy defends a known *drunk driver*: "Almost all vehicle 'accidents' are due to driver recklessness but the Chappaquidick incident is one instance where it may really have been no ones fault except the idiot who built the bridge." --"Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," 11/10/2005 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9jtjt Msg ID: 1131599968.267321.318380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message