 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / March 2008Figuring Out How Much a Hybrid, Diesel, or Small Car Will Save Per Year
There's a calculator at www.fast-math.org in which you can enter the estimated mileage (or kilometerage) you drive per year, the mileage your current car is getting, the mileage a proposed new car will get, and it will show you how much money you can save. If you already have a fuel-efficient car, you can have fun running as-ifs and after-the- fact comparisons. Take care, - Jeff - My '04 Prius cost about $5,000 more than a comparable non-hybrid, so I factored in the loss of income from that money differential (we pay cash and keep cars until they're not economical to fix). Also, there are differences in maintenance. For example, my Prius may never need a brake job... And there's one more savings: time. In my driving environment, I estimate that my HOV-lane access is worth 2.2 hours per month - and time is money. Those stickers aren't available any longer, but mine are good till 2011 and I can guarantee that I'll keep this car at least that long. A great car! > There's a calculator at www.fast-math.org in which you can enter the > estimated mileage (or kilometerage) you drive per year, the mileage [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Take care, > - Jeff - > My '04 Prius cost about $5,000 more than a comparable > non-hybrid, so I factored in the loss of income from [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Take care, > > - Jeff - You cant put a price tag on saving the environment. Thank goodness for all of you people that are willing to by hybrids. Not only are you saving the world you are saving gasoline so there will be enough gasoline for those can afford to own and drive the bigger safer RWD V8 sporty and luxury cars we love LOL mike >> My '04 Prius cost about $5,000 more than a comparable >> non-hybrid, so I factored in the loss of income from [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You cant put a price tag on saving the environment. >Thank goodness for all of you people that are willing to by hybrids. Not >only are you saving the world you are saving gasoline so there will be >enough gasoline for those can afford to own and drive the bigger safer RWD >V8 sporty and luxury cars we love LOL Thank goodness Ford's SUV fetish is going to drive them out of business. >mike > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> You cant put a price tag on saving the environment. >Thank goodness for all of you people that are willing to by hybrids. Not >only are you saving the world you are saving gasoline so there will be >enough gasoline for those can afford to own and drive the bigger safer RWD >V8 sporty and luxury cars we love LOL Not only that, but since automakers have to meet a "fleet average" MPG, all buying a hybrid does is allow some other person to buy a bigger monster truck and eat up the savings. (Here's a memorable op-ed from last year on the topic: David Leonhardt Buy a Hybrid, and Save a Guzzler Published: February 8, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/business/08leonhardt.html registration may be required)  SignatureSteven O'Neill steveo@panix.com Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo > >Thank goodness for all of you people that are willing to by hybrids. Not > >only are you saving the world you are saving gasoline so there will be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > average" MPG, all buying a hybrid does is allow some other > person to buy a bigger monster truck and eat up the savings. Those are the same people at the pump next to me crying about the fuel prices. > > Not only that, but since automakers have to meet a "fleet > > average" MPG, all buying a hybrid does is allow some other > > person to buy a bigger monster truck and eat up the savings. > > Those are the same people at the pump next to me crying about the fuel > prices. We call that the 'stupid tax.' Bob Wilson > You cant put a price tag on saving the environment. Yes, you can. Imagine that to preserve an appropriate and viable balance of people and food supply, that we have to eliminate the population of, say, Africa. We'd be saving the environment, right? On Oct 19, 3:27 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote: > In article <1192814706.107072.310...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > We'd be saving the environment, right? Well, not exactly what I had in mind, I was thinking more of hybrids being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved. > > > You cant put a price tag on saving the environment. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > being able to reduce Carbon emissions and that you cant put a price on > that. That sort of stuff and no mass murder involved. Ah. Well, then, you CAN put a price tag on saving the environment, then. On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote: > In article <1192836172.178329.290...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Well, then, you CAN put a price tag on saving the environment, then. You are right, there's a way to compute Carbon emission per kilometer or something, Thanks for pointing that out. I'm not a hybrid owner. To be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a keep my money and buy a less expensive non hybrid car or do I my part to reduce carbon emission and buy a hybrid. I kept my money. > On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > expensive non hybrid car or do I my part to reduce carbon emission and > buy a hybrid. I kept my money. <rant on> Why izzit that every new catchword becomes yet another fad. Got a carbon problem? Plant more trees! Why izzit that modern day PC folk insist on re-inventing wheel? <rant over> JT >> On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >JT Planting more trees is a good idea and we're doing it in my neighborhood. But there is a limit to how many trees we can fit It looks like human activity is causing some global problems. That isn't really very surprising to me. We've dumped lots of stuff that never existed in nature back into nature. We've cut down most of the rain forests. We've pumped all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere. We've caused the extinction of countless species (yes, we could probably count them but I'm using the term to mean "a great many"). And when it's pointed out that perhaps we'd better do something to protect the only planet we have and pass it on to future generations, we get all kinds of gruff. Well, fine, maybe we're wrong and there is no problem. Let's just continue what we're doing until it's too late. Maybe science will come up with a fix. Or maybe we'll all get wiped out or face a much more hostile environment. Really, why should it bother me anyway? I'll be dead. I guess I'll buy that hummer after all. >>>On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Really, why should it bother me anyway? I'll be dead. I guess I'll buy > that hummer after all. When it can be explained to me why adjacent planets are also warming up, then I may admit that human contributions, (which by the way amount to less than .5% of the increase in recent years), might be a factor. The loss of carbon conversion can largely be attributed to the destruction of the tropical and other rainforests and in that way, yes, we are a factor and one that could easily be reversed. But that does not 'plain the planetary warm up... JT >>>>On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >When it can be explained to me why adjacent planets are also warming up, We don't have much historic data on average temperatures on Mars and Venus. They are very different from Earth and from each other. We really don't know what kind of cycles are in play there. I couldn't find any reference on Venus warming recently. I only found one reference on Mars warming referencing a paper in Nature which also noted that the surface had gotten darker and speculating that some kind of wind cycle churning up dust could be at play. >then I may admit that human contributions, (which by the way amount to >less than .5% of the increase in recent years), might be a factor. How do you know that? BTW, Venus is the poster boy for greenhouse climate change. Fifty years ago it was assumed that the surface of Venus was like a swamp on the equator of Earth. We now know it is more like a furnace. This is the result of run-away global warming due to the high CO2 content of its atmosphere. By some models, Earth starts to run away if the average global temperature hits 80F. >The loss of carbon conversion can largely be attributed to the >destruction of the tropical and other rainforests and in that way, yes, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >JT > We don't have much historic data on average temperatures on Mars and > Venus. They are very different from Earth You mean the sun isn't their primary source of heat? > We > really don't know what kind of cycles are in play there. Actually we do: http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html >>We don't have much historic data on average temperatures on Mars and >>Venus. They are very different from Earth [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html Good read. Thanks, JT >> We don't have much historic data on average temperatures on Mars and >> Venus. They are very different from Earth > >You mean the sun isn't their primary source of heat? The sun is the major source of heat, but the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is very different and the cause of the radical difference in their climates. There are other differences as well >> We >> really don't know what kind of cycles are in play there. > >Actually we do: > >http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html Variations in solar output have an influence on the climate, but no more so than volcanic activity or other minor factors. At least not recently. The idea that it was a significant contributor to present day global warming was floated by some researchers (and waved like a flag by conservatives) a few years ago, but has now been discredited. The fact that solar output has dropped over the last 20 years while the temperature on Earth has risen should put this theory to bed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf Grumpy was talking about rising temperatures on inner planets, but other than Mars and Earth, there is no evidence of this that I can find. Martian warming is due to albedo. There has been warming of some outer planets (including Pluto which still hasn't heard about its demotion), but nobody thinks this is due to variations in solar output. >>>>On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > >JT ...and smoking builds healthy lungs and dumping poisons in the river makes our kids build strong bones...those crazy liberals are health fiends.... >>>>>On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > makes our kids build strong bones...those crazy liberals are health > fiends.... Thank you for a most intelligent post. Moron! JT >>>>>>On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >>>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > >JT You signed your post twice: once as Moron and then as JT. A moron is someone like you who just vomited that human contributions might be a factor. The fact that I mocked your pathetic denial based diseased mental processes so well really stung you into self-defense mode. Oh. You're Welcome. The Doctor snip >>Thank you for a most intelligent post. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The Doctor Spin it anyway you want. Your sheeple attitude (and knowledge) reveal you for what you are... Not credible. JT > snip > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Your sheeple attitude (and knowledge) reveal you for what you are... Not > credible. So says the rightwingnut who still claims preemptive wars and tax cuts for the rich are the best policies for the US. Tells me all I need to know. <snip> > ...and smoking builds healthy lungs and dumping poisons in the river > makes our kids build strong bones...those crazy liberals are health > fiends.... Interesting - the stuff one learns on Usenet! :) >>>>>On Oct 19, 7:55 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> >>>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > makes our kids build strong bones...those crazy liberals are health > fiends.... So, intelligent discourse is not one of your attributes, eh? JT <snip> >> ...and smoking builds healthy lungs and dumping poisons in the river >> makes our kids build strong bones...those crazy liberals are health >> fiends.... > > So, intelligent discourse is not one of your attributes, eh? I think someone's sarcasm detector needs to be returned to the factory for retreading. :) > To > be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a keep my money and buy a less > expensive non hybrid car or do I my part to reduce carbon emission and > buy a hybrid. I kept my money. The most effective way to reduce our cars impact is to drive less. > In article <1192899378.924973.41...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The most effective way to reduce our cars impact is to drive less. Exactly. > > To > > be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a keep my money and buy a less > > expensive non hybrid car or do I my part to reduce carbon emission and > > buy a hybrid. I kept my money. > The most effective way to reduce our cars impact is to drive less. Yes. Live near work and take mass transit when possible. alt.autos.toyota.prius alt.autos.toyota alt.autos.honda rec.autos.makers.honda alt.energy.automobile Looks like there are four good candidates. Bob Wilson Waiving the right to remain silent, bwilson4use@hotmail.com (Bob & Holly Wilson) said: > alt.autos.toyota.prius > alt.autos.toyota [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Looks like there are four good candidates. That's five. And, why are you telling us..? SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." >Waiving the right to remain silent, bwilson4use@hotmail.com (Bob & Holly >Wilson) said: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >That's five. And, why are you telling us..? I assumed the poster was volunteering to be placed in a killfile, so I accepted the offer. Elliot Richmond Itinerant astronomy teacher Freelance science writer > I'm not a hybrid owner. To > be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a keep my money and buy a less > expensive non hybrid car or do I my part to reduce carbon emission and > buy a hybrid. I kept my money. Typical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do lieberal. >> I'm not a hybrid owner. To >> be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a keep my money and buy a less >> expensive non hybrid car or do I my part to reduce carbon emission and >> buy a hybrid. I kept my money. > >Typical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do lieberal. Is that similar to a RIPiglican urging others to go die in a war while they stay at home? Is it like that? Say, do you know Jeff Gannon? He was that White House paid "reporter" who asked Bush soft ball questions by day, and f.cked him in the a.s at night by staying at the White House. At least Clinton liked girls. This explains why Bush is so "unusual"... he is a hostile homosexual....like all Republicans getting busted in gay sex stings today. Family values and Jesus. Sure don't hear Republicans singing that song. Bush can't even scare anyone anymore even with talk of World War 3. Stupid liar RIPigs. Thanks for playing, Republican whore boi >>> I'm not a hybrid owner. To >>> be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a keep my money and buy a less [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Is that similar to a RIPiglican urging others to go die in a war while > they stay at home? I'm supporting Ron Paul, cocksucker. So you'll have to wave your broad brush of ignorance somewhere else. plonk > >>> I'm not a hybrid owner. To be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a > >>> keep my money and buy a less expensive non hybrid car or do I my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm supporting Ron Paul, cocksucker. So you'll have to wave your > broad brush of ignorance somewhere else. Do you mean Ron Paul, the right-wing Republican who pretends to be a libertarian? Is that the Ron Paul you support? Good. After he loses the GOP nomination; I hope that he runs as an independent or a third-party candidate to siphon the whacko votes from the GOP, to make it easier to get this country back on the right track and try repair all the damage that Buschco has done. If you hate America, vote Republican. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. Hey, Mike! How's it hangin'? Oops... > If you hate America, vote Republican. I vote Republican because like Republicans and unlike many if not most Democrats, I love America. I used to be a Democrat. Then I grew up. "Twenty/no heart, forty/no brain," and all that. > Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP. Nice doublethink. You don't "support the troops" unless you support what the troops are doing. Geoff -- "When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, 'Why, God? Why me?' and the thundering voice of God answered, 'There's just something about you that pisses me off.'" -- Stephen King >> Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > Nice doublethink. You don't "support the troops" unless you > support what the troops are doing. What they're doing is dying, cuntfuck. > You don't "support the troops" unless you > support what the troops are doing. You don't support the troops unless you're in a foxhole next to one. Get your fat faggot a.s out from under your scab-infected momma's skirt and catch the next C-130 to Tikrit, you fascist dickless f.ck. > > If you hate America, vote Republican. > > I vote Republican because like Republicans and unlike many if not > most Democrats, I love America. Most right wingers don't care about America; they support policies destructive to the nation. > I used to be a Democrat. Then I grew up. And became senile. > > Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > Nice doublethink. You don't "support the troops" unless you support > what the troops are doing. If you don't bother to think, that's what you do. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> >>> I'm not a hybrid owner. To be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a >> >>> keep my money and buy a less expensive non hybrid car or do I my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Do you mean Ron Paul, the right-wing Republican who pretends to be a > libertarian? Is that the Ron Paul you support? Your tiny mind isn't worth my time. plonk > >> I'm supporting Ron Paul, cocksucker. So you'll have to wave your > >> broad brush of ignorance somewhere else. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > plonk How typical; when faced with facts, you run away and hide. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > >>> I'm not a hybrid owner. To be honest I'm guilty too, do I want a > > >>> keep my money and buy a less expensive non hybrid car or do I my [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > If you hate America, vote Republican. Paul won't run as an independent. If he were to run he would get few votes nor would he be a threat to the Republican nominee. Pulling out of Iraq at this point surely is not a move onto the right track. Increasing taxes as as been mentioned already would surely cause a huge loss of jobs and throw the economy into a tailspin. Why would you think the democrats would put us on the right track for pete's sake? > Paul won't run as an independent. If he were to run he would get few > votes nor would he be a threat to the Republican nominee. Your first statement is correct. Both theses of your second statement are wrong. There are already whispers at the RNC about a deal to give RP the VP slot and half the platform if he'll quit now. > Pulling out of Iraq at this point surely is not a move onto the right > track. Especially when the estimate for the war has just come in at "only" $2,400,000,000,000.00. Why not go for eight trillion? Sixteen? It's only your money. What a f.cking idiot. > Increasing taxes as as been mentioned already would surely cause > a huge loss of jobs and throw the economy into a tailspin. Uh, pot. Kettle. > > Paul won't run as an independent. If he were to run he would get few > > votes nor would he be a threat to the Republican nominee. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > $2,400,000,000,000.00. Why not go for eight trillion? Sixteen? It's only > your money. What a f.cking idiot. You like using those four letter words with sexual connotations don't ya. BTW how old are you? It might help me better understand your position. If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. The middle east would be in flames controlled by Iran. A much wider war would break out involving more countries. The situation would be much worse than it is now. > > Increasing taxes as as been mentioned already would surely cause > > a huge loss of jobs and throw the economy into a tailspin. > > Uh, pot. Kettle. > If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. The middle east would > be in flames controlled by Iran. A much wider war would break out > involving more countries. The situation would be much worse than it is > now. I. Don't. Care. Not. Our. Country. > > If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. The middle east would > > be in flames controlled by Iran. A much wider war would break out > > involving more countries. The situation would be much worse than it is > > now. > > I. Don't. Care. Not. Our. Country. Well, I care. Don't forget what happened after Vietnam, we had a whole bunch of new citizens. In message news:nos-434FE4.16541425102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, dbu. sprach forth the following: >> > If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. The middle east >> > would be in flames controlled by Iran. A much wider war would break [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well, I care. Then why don't you get your fat faggot a.s out of your momma's scab- infected c.nt and onto the next C-130 bound for Mosul, chickenshit? > Don't forget what happened after Vietnam 60,000 dead Americans. If that's your goal, I welcome you to be one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Effect_on_the_United_States In the United States, a generation of Americans struggled to absorb the lessons of military intervention without clear motives or objectives. As General Maxwell Taylor, one of the principal architects of the war, noted "first, we didn't know ourselves. We thought that we were going into another Korean war, but this was a different country. Secondly, we didn't know our South Vietnamese allies … And we knew less about North Vietnam. Who was Ho Chi Minh? Nobody really knew. So, until we know the enemy and know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of dirty business. It's very dangerous."[ > In message news:nos-434FE4.16541425102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, dbu. > sprach forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Then why don't you get your fat faggot a.s out of your momma's scab- > infected c.nt and onto the next C-130 bound for Mosul, chickenshit? I would if I could. I've spent quite a few hours in the cockpit of a C-130 BTW. > > Don't forget what happened after Vietnam > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > know our allies and know ourselves, we'd better keep out of this kind of > dirty business. It's very dangerous."[ > > Then why don't you get your fat faggot a.s out of your momma's > > scab- infected c.nt and onto the next C-130 bound for Mosul, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I've spent quite a few hours in the cockpit of a C-130 BTW. And did the nice pilot man pin plastic wings on you? SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > Don't forget what happened after Vietnam, we had a whole bunch of new > citizens. And you want to keep America White. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. The middle east would > be in flames controlled by Iran. A much wider war would break out > involving more countries. The situation would be much worse than it is > now. Oh how precious that now you care about those sandniggers, huh? > > If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. The middle east would > > be in flames controlled by Iran. A much wider war would break out > > involving more countries. The situation would be much worse than it is > > now. > > Oh how precious that now you care about those sandniggers, huh? You could have them here, next door to you if we pull out. What do you think about that situation? In message news:nos-E7597D.17023125102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, dbu. sprach forth the following: >> > If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. The middle east >> > would be in flames controlled by Iran. A much wider war would break [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You could have them here, next door to you if we pull out. Bullshit. Zero Iraqis involved in 9/11. Zero Iraqis connected to any US terror targets. Following your "logic", the US should exact regime change on Saudi Arabia. > What do you > think about that situation? What would you have thought had China sent troops to Florida during the Gore/Bush vote counting? > In message news:nos-E7597D.17023125102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, dbu. > sprach forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > What would you have thought had China sent troops to Florida during the > Gore/Bush vote counting? Hallelujah! >> If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. The middle east would >> be in flames controlled by Iran. A much wider war would break out >> involving more countries. The situation would be much worse than it is >> now. > >Oh how precious that now you care about those sandniggers, huh? I knew it was going to happen, but that hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the right-wing GOP meltdown one bit. > If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. When did we get out of Cambodia? Oh, we were never in Cambodia, so there was nothing to get out of. > The middle east would be in flames controlled by Iran. We're keeping the entire Middle East from being controlled by Iran by being in Iraq???? SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle- 83D00E.15130725102007@news.east.cox.net: >> If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. > > When did we get out of Cambodia? Oh, we were never in Cambodia, so > there was nothing to get out of. Um...your Google skills leave a bit to be desired. US military involvement in Cambodia in 1970 is a matter of (very accessible) historical record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign Michelle was in Army intellegence, she would know would'nt she? I would think. Maybe..... Sort of like John Kerry's trip up the Mekong, LOL. > Michelle was in Army intellegence Yeah, the kind of "intelligence" that said Saddam had WMDs. > > Michelle was in Army intellegence > > Yeah, the kind of "intelligence" that said Saddam had WMDs. get out of here.. You are a smoker like the jsb/larrymoe circle jerk. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign > > Michelle was in Army intellegence, she would know would'nt she? I > would think. Maybe..... > > Sort of like John Kerry's trip up the Mekong, LOL. Were you duped by the Swiftboat Liars, or did you willingly believe their lies? SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Were you duped by the Swiftboat Liars, or did you willingly believe > their lies? If you believe *anything* Kerry sez, you're dumber than you sound. Kerry = Bucket of unwanted pig vomit JT >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >JT Kerry was a fool to go to Viet Nam and fight when he could have hidden out in the Guard and gone AWOL like George Walker Bush. Waiving the right to remain silent, Doctor Geller <Geller@zed.nul> said: > Kerry was a fool to go to Viet Nam and fight when he could have hidden > out in the Guard and gone AWOL like George Walker Bush. How long do you think you can perpetuate the AWOL myth..? SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." On 10/28/2007 2:03 AM Larry in AZ spake these words of knowledge: > Waiving the right to remain silent, Doctor Geller <Geller@zed.nul> said: > >> Kerry was a fool to go to Viet Nam and fight when he could have hidden >> out in the Guard and gone AWOL like George Walker Bush. > > How long do you think you can perpetuate the AWOL myth..? Exactly. W was never Absent With Out Leave. The cocksucker had permission all the way. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen Signature“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” > >> Kerry was a fool to go to Viet Nam and fight when he could have hidden > >> out in the Guard and gone AWOL like George Walker Bush. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The cocksucker had permission all the way. Relax, He was on R&R, the same R&R in his first 9 months of presidency back in 01 >On 10/28/2007 2:03 AM Larry in AZ spake these words of knowledge: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >The cocksucker had permission all the way. What exactly was the basis for permission to not show up for a few months? The military is not exactly known for permissive work scheduling. Waiving the right to remain silent, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> said: >>On 10/28/2007 2:03 AM Larry in AZ spake these words of knowledge: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > months? The military is not exactly known for permissive work > scheduling. Yeah, and you know everything about the military and all that they've ever done. Guess what..? You are allowed to do whatever your immediate superiors say you can do (or not do). See how that works..? SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." Waiving the right to remain silent, Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> said: > On 10/28/2007 2:03 AM Larry in AZ spake these words of knowledge: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The cocksucker had permission all the way. So, you problem with that is..? SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If you believe *anything* Kerry sez, you're dumber than you sound. He (JT) believes the Swift Boaters. > Kerry = Bucket of unwanted pig vomit What were you asking earlier about intelligent discourse? LOL If Kerry is "unwanted pig vomit", to use your phrase, what does that make Bush? >If Kerry is "unwanted pig vomit", to use your phrase, what does that >make Bush? Effluent from the other end of the pig? In real life they are all about the same stinking bucket. > Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle- > 83D00E.15130725102007@news.east.cox.net: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Um...your Google skills leave a bit to be desired. Heheheheh. Looks like plonking Ms. Stoner is already paying dividends. > Heheheheh. Looks like plonking Ms. Stoner is already paying > dividends. Yeah, you don't have to face facts that contradict your illusions, you two bit whore. SignatureHo Ho Ho my a.s. >> Heheheheh. Looks like plonking Ms. Stoner is already paying >> dividends. > > Yeah, you don't have to face facts that contradict your illusions, you > two bit whore. Stoner hasn't posted DICK that's a "fact", cuntfuck. > >> If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > accessible) historical record. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_Campaign Attacking VC and NVA forces in Cambodia is not the same as being in Cambodia like we were in Vietnam and are in Iraq. I suggest a reading-comprehension course for you. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>> Paul won't run as an independent. If he were to run he would get few >>> votes nor would he be a threat to the Republican nominee. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If we got out now it would be another Cambodia. The middle east would > be in flames controlled by Iran. The Bushies smashed Humpty Dumpty when they invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam. Iraq is in the midst of a sectarian bloodbath which is the US' fault and the presence of US troops only inflames all sides even more. Our presence does our national interests no good and the troops have already figured out they're in the middle of a meat grinder like Vietnam for no purpose. All those lives wasted, all that money down the crapper, Bush & his butt buddies getting filthier rich, very sad. :( > A much wider war would break out > involving more countries. The situation would be much worse than it is > now. I think you forgot "if we don't fight them there we'll have to fight them here". More rightwingnut crappola. "George W Bush - worst president ever" get used to seeing it. PS: I'm still waiting for the US former Viceroy in Iraq, Paul Bremer, to explain where the $9 billion in cash (palletized $100 bills) ended up during his short but ruinous tenure. This is real money folks, not just some fancy Enron bookkeeping entries. $9 billion buys a lot of cops on the streets, health care, rebuilt infrastructure, etc., that the US desperately needs far more than this war so Dubya feels like a man. "George W Bush - worst president ever" > Paul won't run as an independent. He would compromise his principles and support the GOP candidate? > If he were to run he would get few votes nor would he be a threat to > the Republican nominee. So if he ran as an independent, all his supporters will desert him? > Pulling out of Iraq at this point surely is not a move onto the right > track. It surely is. A graduated, time based withdrawal. > Increasing taxes as as been mentioned already would surely > cause a huge loss of jobs and throw the economy into a tailspin. As compared to the current policy of building up the national deficit and debt, and putting the burden on our children and children's children? It's going to come crashing down on us the way it is going. > Why would you think the democrats would put us on the right track for > pete's sake? Because they won't continue the train wreck course we're on now. They'll get rid of the disastrous Every Child Left Behind program; they'll get us on the track to decent medical care, especially for children; they'll reverse the anti-choice policies that the GOP is imposing on the country; they'll get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; they'll work to assure equal rights for all Americans; etc. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle- 6E4BFA.15105125102007@news.east.cox.net: >> Why would you think the democrats would put us on the right track for >> pete's sake? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > imposing on the country; they'll get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; > they'll work to assure equal rights for all Americans; etc. All the items you list as needing fixes require LESS government meddling, not more. And not just "different" meddling either, but actually LESS. None, ideally. Government should be outright prohibited from meddling in almost any area of human life. Hey, I sound just like Thomas Jefferson, an American hero of long standing. The Democrats want far, far more meddling than the US has ever seen since, oh, since the first election won by Bush II, or maybe since LBJ, or maybe since FDR, or maybe since Wilson. All of whom were disastrous executives, highly destructive of the American dream. Indeed the current crop of Dems seem to be drooling, gasping, masturbating, absolutely slavering over the prospect of wielding ever more POWER. Just look at Pelosi's current insane attack against an empire that died 85 years ago. Any "train wrecks" suffered by the US have been directly caused by the fact that government legislators, regulators and bureaucrats can do whatever they or their lobbyist puppetmasters want, without any sort of repercussions at all. Would I vote for Ron Paul? No. He's a statist conservative, not a Jeffersonian liberal. And he is most certainly no "libertarian", even as he lays claim to that label. Ron Paul wants government control of *this* type, but not *that* type. He seems to think this makes him obviously different from your general type of statist who wants government control of *that* type but not *this* type. Ron, get a clue. Would I vote Democrat? No. They are statist socialists in all but name, and are as dangerous as are all true-believer statists who want, very very desperately, to force their views on other people, under penalty of law. Government is the problem, not the solution. So said Jefferson 200 years ago, and so it is still true. SignatureTegger > Just look at Pelosi's current insane attack against an > empire that died 85 years ago. Yeah, how dare the United States meddle in the internal affairs of other nations... >> Just look at Pelosi's current insane attack against an >> empire that died 85 years ago. > > Yeah, how dare the United States meddle in the internal affairs of > other nations... Yes. How can the United States meddle in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire? Please tell me how they can do this in 2007, when the Ottoman Empire imploded and shattered in 1915? SignatureTegger In message news:Xns99D4D8D7321B0tegger@207.14.116.130, Tegger sprach forth the following: >>> Just look at Pelosi's current insane attack against an >>> empire that died 85 years ago. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please tell me how they can do this in 2007, when the Ottoman Empire > imploded and shattered in 1915? Uh, I was referring sarcastically to Iraq. > Would I vote for Ron Paul? No. He's a statist conservative, not a > Jeffersonian liberal. And he is most certainly no "libertarian", even as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > type of statist who wants government control of *that* type but not > *this* type. Ron, get a clue. I'm sure you're ready to back that claim up with documented citations, right? >> Would I vote for Ron Paul? No. He's a statist conservative, not a >> Jeffersonian liberal. And he is most certainly no "libertarian", even [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm sure you're ready to back that claim up with documented citations, > right? You have Google, right? Dig it up yourself. Or are you just trying to pick a fight? SignatureTegger In message news:Xns99D4D852A6706tegger@207.14.116.130, Tegger sprach forth the following: >>> Would I vote for Ron Paul? No. He's a statist conservative, not a >>> Jeffersonian liberal. And he is most certainly no "libertarian", even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You have Google, right? Dig it up yourself. Or are you just trying to > pick a fight? You made a claim. A false claim. I called you on it. Put up or shut up. Ron Paul is in no way, shape or form a "statist"; neither does he want "government control of this type or that type". > In message news:Xns99D4D852A6706tegger@207.14.116.130, Tegger sprach > forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Ron Paul is in no way, shape or form a "statist"; neither does he want > "government control of this type or that type". What does Ron Paul want to do about illegal Mexican immigration? SignatureTegger >> In message news:Xns99D4D852A6706tegger@207.14.116.130, Tegger sprach >> forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > What does Ron Paul want to do about illegal Mexican immigration? Look at his website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/ The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan: * Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. * Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. * No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. * No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. * End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. * Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods. >> What does Ron Paul want to do about illegal Mexican immigration? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my > six point plan: Before you go off half-cocked, Google Teddy Kennedy's Immigration Act of 1965. Wonder why you now have a problem with those little brown people? Blame the the drunken Democrat from Massachusetts. SignatureTegger In message news:Xns99D4E51F09DD0tegger@207.14.116.130, Tegger sprach forth the following: >>> What does Ron Paul want to do about illegal Mexican immigration? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Before you go off half-cocked, Google Teddy Kennedy's Immigration Act > of 1965. Been there done that. > Wonder why you now have a problem with those little brown people? Blame > the the drunken Democrat from Massachusetts. You're forgetting the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)? Alan Simpson? Romano Mazzoli? Ronald Reagan? Ring a bell? > In message news:Xns99D4E51F09DD0tegger@207.14.116.130, Tegger sprach > forth the following: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You're forgetting the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)? Alan > Simpson? Romano Mazzoli? Ronald Reagan? Ring a bell? Yes I do and it didn't work so why should we try it again? JT >>>What does Ron Paul want to do about illegal Mexican immigration? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Wonder why you now have a problem with those little brown people? Blame the > the drunken Democrat from Massachusetts. Heh... If you look back for the past forty-five years, there were a lot of "drunken Democrats." A lot of today's problems were birth during the mid 1960's such as: • The Great Society which has fostered dependence on guv'ment more than ever. LBJ's attempt to fix his legacy • Introducing the grand plan to remove most manufacturing from the US • Affirmative Action - (Don't even get me started on this one) • Dumbing down educational standards to accommodate sub standard students • Gutting the military and continuing the Truman doctrine to not win any wars • And then that nasty immigraion bill/law that you mentioned Anyone want to continue on all the damage Carter caused? <grrrrr> JT > >>>> Would I vote for Ron Paul? No. He's a statist conservative, not a > >>>> Jeffersonian liberal. And he is most certainly no "libertarian", [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > -- > Tegger Why specifically mexican?? Last time I checked there are Canadian, and Asian illegals working in the US too. =) In message news:1193404025.375783.152970@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com, EdV sprach forth the following: >> >>>> Would I vote for Ron Paul? No. He's a statist conservative, not a >> >>>> Jeffersonian liberal. And he is most certainly no "libertarian", [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Why specifically mexican?? Last time I checked there are Canadian, and > Asian illegals working in the US too. =) Tegger seems to think illegal immigration is a racial thing, not a legal thing. He is wrong. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/ Border Security and Immigration Reform The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan: * Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. * Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. * No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. * No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. * End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. * Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods. See that last statment Tegger: FROM ALL COUNTRIES. > > Because they won't continue the train wreck course we're on now. > > They'll get rid of the disastrous Every Child Left Behind program; [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > meddling, not more. And not just "different" meddling either, but > actually LESS. None, ideally. "No Child Left Behind" is government meddling. The anti-choice policies is government meddling. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is government meddling. Laws preventing gays from adopting children or marrying each other is government meddling. The Democrats will reduce government meddling in all those areas. Health care is a different kettle of fish, though; the mess we're in is the result of HMOs and other health insurance companies. No government action will let them run rampant and make the situation even worse. Capitalism is a great institution, and is probably the best economic system there is; however, unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as total government control. > Would I vote for Ron Paul? No. He's a statist conservative, not a > Jeffersonian liberal. And he is most certainly no "libertarian", even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > general type of statist who wants government control of *that* type > but not *this* type. Ron, get a clue. I totally agree with those two paragraphs. > Would I vote Democrat? No. They are statist socialists in all but > name, and are as dangerous as are all true-believer statists who > want, very very desperately, to force their views on other people, > under penalty of law. And for the same reason I won't vote Republican; they are more statist than the Democrats. And I won't vote Libertarian because the Libertarian party today is composed of right wingers who have fled the religious right's takeover of the GOP. So, of all the options, the Democrats are the least odious to me. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> > Because they won't continue the train wreck course we're on now. >> > They'll get rid of the disastrous Every Child Left Behind program; [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > each other is government meddling. The Democrats will reduce > government meddling in all those areas. I think that unlikely, given their starry-eyed attraction to meddling in so many other areas. > Health care is a different kettle of fish, though; the mess we're in > is the result of HMOs and other health insurance companies. No > government action will let them run rampant and make the situation > even worse. Capitalism is a great institution, and is probably the > best economic system there is; however, unrestrained capitalism is > just as bad as total government control. As somebody famous once said, capitalism is a great system, except that it's never been tried. The current health care and insurance mess is entirely government- created, and can be solved by prohibiting governments from meddling in it. TORT (liability) ---------------- Class action; contingency-fee lawyering; bottom-of-the-barrel jury selection; massive, wildly outlandish punitives, even in cases (like Vioxx) where the jury foreman admitted he had NO idea what the defense was saying. These all conspire to create massive risk for medical suppliers and their insurance companies. Who wants to be the next Johns Manville or Dow Corning? INSURANCE OLIGOPOLIES --------------------- Americans are prohibited by law from purchasing insurance from outside their home states. Lowered competition means higher prices. INDUSTRY INSURANCE ------------------ Out-of-control tort means massive insurance hikes for industry, since the insurance companies' exposure is far more than it was 40 years ago. The hit is not just on direct malpractice insurance as bought by obstetricians and anesthetists, but on the makers and suppliers of equipment and pharmaceuticals. It's accumulative, one added on top of the other by the time the cost hits the final payer (often an insurance company, ironically). CONSUMER INSURANCE ------------------ Many states have anti-discriminatory regulations that prevent insurance companies from performing the traditional actuarial assessments that were standard for over 200 years. This means they cannot charge according to perceived risk levels, so EVERYBODY's insurance goes up to compensate. This way they get around governmental and activist charges of "discrimination". States often have "must issue" laws. These dictate that if somebody applies to them for insurance, the company MUST issue a policy to the applicant. This has a tendency to make people avoid buying insurance until they actually need it, so the insurance company ends up being sucker-punched with immediate high costs. Further, states tend to have rules that dictate that if insurance companies wish to offer one kind of insurance in that state, that company must offer ALL its product lines. Withdraw one (such as flood or health), and they are barred from selling ANYTHING. So what happens to rates? They go up, of course. TAX CODE -------- Just after WWII, the government retained wartime price controls for a few years. This meant that companies, desperately needing labor to meet demand, could not attract that labor by offering better wages than the competition. They COULD offer better benefits, however, so they did. This caused a distortion where insurance became a business expense for the companies, them paying for it with pre-tax dollars. But if /you/ bought insurance privately, you paid for it with after-tax dollars. This is a situation that still exists. It wasn’t so bad until rates began climbing for the reasons given above, but it’s a real problem now. A large chunk of the "40 million Americans without insurance" are between jobs. MEDICARE/MEDICAID FUNDING MODEL ------------------------------- Private insurance originally paid only for standard job billing. If hospitals or other medic |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message