 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / September 2007MIKE Hunter's smaller car thesis??
"In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per million registered vehicles for the smallest cars. That figure drops to 108 fatalities for the next larger class of cars. For large sedans, that number drops to 61 per million. For small SUVs, the figure was 75 deaths per million as compared with 62 for large SUVs. For pickups, totals increased to 124 per million for small trucks and 102 per million for large." Technically Mike is right, but the numbers are still so low that even a half a percent change is not very much. Secondly, there are more small cars on the road than larger cars. Furthermore, how many of those accidents are more deadly because a gas hogging driver, in a large SUV, hits a small car? So basically what Mike is asking small car owners to do is to accomidate him because he is a pussy. So instead of buiying a 15 thousand dollar gas saver, you should buy a 30 thousand dollar SUV (this difference is what Mike calls "Saving a few bucks vs safety") This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car with his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! > "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the Insurance > Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per million [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Secondly, there are more small cars on the road than larger cars. But the statistics are for fatalities/vehicles. OTOH I want to know how the numbers compare, once the number of miles and ages and incomes of the drivers are considered. >> "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the Insurance >> Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per million [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > how the numbers compare, once the number of miles and ages and incomes > of the drivers are considered. I don't think anyone has done the study that accounts for demographic factors. Jeff > "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the > Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car with > his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved, especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers. > I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved, > especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers. ==================================== There was a campaign in the US to get get the good ol boys in pickup trucks to use their seatbelts. Maybe they thought their personal liberty was being encroached on by the intrusive governmant regulations, but they were dying in disproportionate numbers by flying out during crashes. >> I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved, >> especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >regulations, but they were dying in disproportionate numbers by flying >out during crashes. Sounds like a win-win situation to me. >> I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved, >> especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > regulations, but they were dying in disproportionate numbers by flying > out during crashes. so let them. natural selection. >> I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved, >> especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was being encroached on by the intrusive governmant regulations, but they > were dying in disproportionate numbers by flying out during crashes. Evolution in action. "Bill Ward" , BobG wrote: >>> I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved, >>> especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Evolution in action. I live in bubba territory (North Carolina), and we just had two ejection-from-truck accidents, and in both cases, the (belted) passengers lived. I saw a little kid, about a year old, *walking around* in a king cab. I would have reported them, if I wasn't so busy watching that child and fuming. I don't get why *they* don't get it. Natalie > "Bill Ward" > , BobG wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Natalie chill babe! you're witnessing something vital to the survival of the species! if the stupid ones kill themselves [and their kids], they will die out. that leaves more for the rest of us! >> "Bill Ward" >> , BobG wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > species! if the stupid ones kill themselves [and their kids], they will > die out. that leaves more for the rest of us! Actually, they just need to kill their kids. However, it often has a lot to do with education, not intelligence. Rather, I would like to keep all the kids alive and have them well educated. Jeff "Jeff" ... >>> "Bill Ward" >>> , BobG wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > However, it often has a lot to do with education, not intelligence. Exactly- I know plenty of well-educated people who don't wear their seatbelts routinely. They only wear them for the highway, which is stupid, since most fatalities happen within 30 minutes of one's home. Dunno why that is; my guess is that on the highway, people tend to be more alert. > Rather, I would like to keep all the kids alive and have them well > educated. > > Jeff I get the Darwin thing, but it's not the kids' fault their parents are idjits. Natalie > "Jeff" ... >>>> "Bill Ward" [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Exactly- I know plenty of well-educated people who don't wear their > seatbelts routinely. The governor of New Jersey, for instance. "JoeSpareBedroom" <... > "Wickeddoll®" ... >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > The governor of New Jersey, for instance. Yeah, I remember that - and he was speeding. What a twit. Natalie > "JoeSpareBedroom" <... >> "Wickeddoll®" ... [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >> > Yeah, I remember that - and he was speeding. IIRC, he wasn't speeding. He has people to do that for him. "Bill Ward"... >> "JoeSpareBedroom" <... >>> "Wickeddoll®" ... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > IIRC, he wasn't speeding. He has people to do that for him. Mea culpa. :-) Natalie >> "JoeSpareBedroom" <... >>> "Wickeddoll®" ... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > IIRC, he wasn't speeding. He has people to do that for him. Yeah - a state trooper was doing 90-ish mph during that accident. Meanwhile, 11 teens were killed in gruesome car accidents here over the past month, and the police say some were "speed related". > "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddollNoEffingSpam1958@yahoo.com> wrote in message <...> >>> However, it often has a lot to do with education, not intelligence. >> Exactly- I know plenty of well-educated people who don't wear their >> seatbelts routinely. > > The governor of New Jersey, for instance. What about him? He wears his seatbelts, NOW. Jeff > "Jeff" ... > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Natalie Maybe but bear in mind that the defective genes have probably been passed on down... JT On 6/30/2007 3:42 PM Wickeddoll® spake these words of knowledge: > "Jeff" ... >>>> "Bill Ward" [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > since most fatalities happen within 30 minutes of one's home. Dunno why > that is; my guess is that on the highway, people tend to be more alert. Actually, it's quite simple; most travel is within 30 minutes of one's home. Additionally, longer distances usually imply highway miles. Interstate highways don't have intersections or opposing traffic (on the same roadway) and are much, much safer than city streets. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen  SignatureAt dinner yesterday, I tried to cut myself a slice of prime rib, but it was only divisible by itself and one. Do what I do!! I try to ALWAYS travel more than 30 miles from home, since my insurance agent told me most accidents happen within 30 miles of where one lives ;) mike "Dave Kelsen" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:4687bb94$0$3155 >> Exactly- I know plenty of well-educated people who don't wear their >> seatbelts routinely. They only wear them for the highway, which is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > RFT!!! > Dave Kelsen > Do what I do!! I try to ALWAYS travel more than 30 miles from home, > since my insurance agent told me most accidents happen within 30 miles of > where one lives ;) That's why I moved... > Do what I do!! I try to ALWAYS travel more than 30 miles from home, > since my insurance agent told me most accidents happen within 30 miles of > where one lives ;) > > mike I just close my eyes and drive *real* fast so I can get 30 miles away before an accident happens to me. Other Mike > > Do what I do!! I try to ALWAYS travel more than 30 miles from home, > > since my insurance agent told me most accidents happen within 30 miles of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Other Mike Here our Gov medical system and our Gov auto insurance only pay part of your medical bill if you have driving injuries and weren't wearing your seat belt. Wickeddoll wrote: > Exactly- I know plenty of well-educated people who don't wear their > seatbelts routinely. They only wear them for the highway, which is > stupid, > since most fatalities happen within 30 minutes of one's home. Dunno why > that is; my guess is that on the highway, people tend to be more alert. Maybe because most driving is done within 30 minutes of one's home? In the course of a 25,000 mile year of driving, I probably only leave that radius 10-15 times. I am pretty sure that most people are in the same boat (car?)... >>> "Bill Ward" >>> , BobG wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Rather, I would like to keep all the kids alive and have them well > educated. You sound like some liberal wuss! <bfg> > "Bill Ward" > , BobG wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ejection-from-truck accidents, and in both cases, the (belted) passengers > lived. In one case in NE PA, a truck was stopped waiting to turn as a car in the other direction was approaching on a four-lane road. A vehicle behind the stopped vehicle ran into the stopped truck, flipping the truck. The driver of the stopped truck was not wearing a seat belt and was thrown from the vehicle. He died. In another case, a kid about 18 months old was in his buckled-in child seat when a t-boned went through a read light and t-boned the van he was riding in. His dad was fine. The kid was thrown from the van, with the seatbelts ripping through the plastic of the seat. The ambulance people were not able to get a tube down his throat to help him breath. That's a bad sign. When they were bagging him on the way in, air was coming out around his eyes. That's way bad. The only sign of life he had was that he peed before he was pronounced dead (a reflex action by his spinal cord, no doubt). > I saw a little kid, about a year old, *walking around* in a king cab. I > would have reported them, if I wasn't so busy watching that child and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Natalie The odds of getting killed or injured on a single trip are small. And, as the story about the 18 mo old shows, even when you do the right things, a family member can still die. As the adult who was hit from behind shows, you need to wear the seat belts all the time, even when stopped, to reduce the odds of death the most. Jeff >> "Bill Ward" >> , BobG wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Jeff Yeah, I know there is the rare instance of restraints either failing, or even causing the death, but those are exorbitant odds that nobody should try to dodge. Natalie Three years ago one of my wife's friends neglected to belt up before she got on the icy highway. The car slid off and she broke the passenger's door with her butt, fracturing a vertebrum. She was taken off in an ambulance and has only partially recovered so far - if she had been belted in she could have driven her car home. Two years ago a friend was driving his work truck westbound from Phoenix on I-10. A car in the next lane and slightly ahead had a blowout at 75 mph and the driver overcorrected, veering sideways in front of my friend's truck. With no time to react my friend's truck hit the car in the driver's door, sending it rolling madly down the freeway until it came to rest on its roof. All the glass was gone and the car was unrecognizable. The young woman driving it unfastened her belt and crawled out with just a cut on her hand. When she recovered some of her wits she started screaming, "My baby!" My friend and one of the others who had stopped crawled inside to find an infant in a baby seat in the center of the rear seat, looking puzzled. They unfastened the baby seat from the car and lifted it out. Mother and baby slept in their own beds that night instead of any of the awful alternatives. Last year my wife's sister didn't notice the car in front of her had stopped. She hit the stopped car; she was unbelted and the steering wheel tore her liver completely in two. Her young daughter had belted herself in the passenger seat and was unhurt. Somehow it really doesn't seem very hard to understand. Mike <...> > Somehow it really doesn't seem very hard to understand. There is a big difference between understanding and doing the appropriate behavior. Ask all those who smoke. Jeff > Mike "Jeff" ... > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jeff But it's waaayyyy easier to put on a seat belt, than quit smoking, or for that matter, losing weight. Natalie "Michael Pardee" ... > Three years ago one of my wife's friends neglected to belt up before she > got on the icy highway. The car slid off and she broke the passenger's [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Mike You would think so, but apparently it isn't. I became even more of restraint fanatic after working in an Emergency Room. I remember a New Year's Eve fatality with a 17-year-old girl, who, when you looked at her body, there was barely a mark on her, but she died instantly when her unrestrained head hit just the right part of the inside of the car. (she wasn't drunk or high, either) What a waste. Natalie I have never been in a car without my seat belt on... guess that is just how we were raised... my parents both worked at a hospital though... I always love those stories people tell you about "the doctor told me if i had my seat belt on, id be dead." cough cough... bs cough cough... > "Michael Pardee" ... >> Three years ago one of my wife's friends neglected to belt up before she [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Natalie "GO Mavs"... >I have never been in a car without my seat belt on... > > guess that is just how we were raised... > > my parents both worked at a hospital though... Bingo! > I always love those stories people tell you about "the doctor told me if i > had my seat belt on, id be dead." > > cough cough... bs cough cough... Amen! Most of the time, that's exactly what it is. Natalie >> "Michael Pardee" ... >>> Three years ago one of my wife's friends neglected to belt up before she [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> >> Natalie >I have never been in a car without my seat belt on... >guess that is just how we were raised... >my parents both worked at a hospital though... >I always love those stories people tell you about "the doctor told me if i >had my seat belt on, id be dead." >cough cough... bs cough cough... I started doing accident investigations back when seatbelts were still optional equipment, but I can't remember one accident where the vehicle's occupants would have been better off without seatbelts. On the other hand, I did know a person who would not have lost his big toe if he hadn't been wearing steel-toed safety shoes, and my father may have died prematurely, from Parkinson's disease, because he quit smoking at age 75. Still, I don't mow the lawn without safety shoes or smoke. Why do you find it necessary to smoke when you mow the lawn? ;) I don't mow the lawn without safety shoes or smoke. > I don't mow the lawn without safety shoes or smoke. > > Why do you find it necessary to smoke when you mow the lawn? ;) Mike, you silly goose. You have misplaced the modifier. He does not mow the lawn without safety shoes or [safety] smoke. My last gasoline lawnmower was equipped with safety smoke, although I had to mix the proper oil into the gasoline to make the safety smoke come out the right color. Geez - I have to explain everything. Mike >> I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved, >> especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > regulations, but they were dying in disproportionate numbers by flying > out during crashes. They probably didn't believe in evolution, either. :) >>> I'd also like to know more about what types of accidents were involved, >>> especially for pickups. My guess would be rollovers. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They probably didn't believe in evolution, either. :) Of course, there is no genetic link in incremental intelligence among humans and therefore no natural selection mechanism. Brilliant people can have offspring who are dull or brilliant, just as dull people can have children who are dull or brilliant. Defects are another matter. I'm just sayin'. Mike >"In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the Insurance >Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per million [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >million as compared with 62 for large SUVs. For pickups, totals increased to >124 per million for small trucks and 102 per million for large." IIHS really tries to bury the details of Driver Fatalities Statistics. If you don't believe me, go to: http://www.iihs.org/ and try to find them. This is as close as I could get: http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/occupants.html#sec3 It is a an aggregate list by vehicle type rather than individual makes and models. I have seen these results in the past and the interesting thing is how much variability there is. Some small cars have lower driver fatality rates than some very large SUVs. Go here to see lists of vehicles with the highest and lowest driver fatality rates: http://tinyurl.com/2od58m There are surprises, some of which demonstrate the weakness of real world surveys. Are Chevy Astros really that safe, or is flower delivery just an inherently low risk occupation? Harder to explain away is why the Chevy Blazer death rate is 21 times higher than an Infiniti G35. >Technically Mike is right, but the numbers are still so low that even a half >a percent change is not very much. > >Secondly, there are more small cars on the road than larger cars. As others have pointed out, this is not really a factor, at least not in the manner you imply. But read on. >Furthermore, how many of those accidents are more deadly because a gas >hogging driver, in a large SUV, hits a small car? Very true, and you also have to consider the opposite. Is the monster SUV's fatality rate low because it most often collides with something smaller? What if everyone were driving monster SUVs? The way the data is presented is a distorted view of public safety. It looks at the vehicle in the vacuum of "does it protect the occupants" rather than "does it pose unnecessary risk to everyone else." Why are there no statistics on the likelihood of Model X causing the driver of the other vehicle to die? And how about pedestrians? Why do we have a side-impact test which determines the ability of a car to resist a tall SUV bumper instead of a law requiring all passenger vehicles (i.e. SUVs) to have a uniform bumper height? According to the IIHS reasoning, a vehicle that killed someone else every time you drive it but only killed the driver six times in every million vehicle years would be the safest vehicle on the road. This attitude reflects a popular political/economic argument which conveniently justifies greedy, self-centered lifestyles. Some call this "the law of the jungle," but the truth is that behavior like this will get you kicked out of the ape tribe PDQ. >So basically what Mike is asking small car owners to do is to accomidate him >because he is a pussy. So instead of buiying a 15 thousand dollar gas saver, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car with >his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! If Mike was really concerned with safety, he would be better off with a Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna which have lower driver fatality rates than any "full size" SUV >> "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the Insurance >> Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per million [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > a Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna which have lower driver fatality > rates than any "full size" SUV Yet, this does not take into account the way the vehicles are used, e.g., people go faster with big SUVs or who is driving them, like teens vs. mature adults. These other factors (how, where and by whom the vehicles are used) may affect the death rates more than the vehicle themselves. For example, Ford minivans have a different death rates than similar Mercury vans, presumably because the average driver of each van has different characteristics. Likewise, the death rate for Indy cars and NASCAR cars is higher than the death rate for production cars, even though the Indy and NASCAR cars are far safer. Jeff >> "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the Insurance >> Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per million [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > this "the law of the jungle," but the truth is that behavior like this > will get you kicked out of the ape tribe PDQ. it's nothing of the sort. it's all about subtle [political] promotion of big heavy vehicles by the oilcos. big heavy vehicles consume more gas. most modern "safety" in small cars has resulted in significant weight increases. like 50% in the last 20 years. think about it. cars today are touted as spectacularly "economic" of they get 40mpg. yet my 18 year old civic can do 40 no problem. more if i do only 55mph. has engine technology stood still in that time? no. does it take more gas to lump a 3400lb vehicle up a grade than a 2200lb one? yes, significantly. and that's all there is to it! real world gas mileage* has stayed flat as engine efficiency increases have been negated by vehicle mass increases. suv's with their total _disregard_ of safety are pure gas consumption gravy. clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no sense. time to get real and put national security ahead of oilco security. smaller lighter more fuel efficient vehicles are the way to go. it won't even cause any pain for detroit since they make vehicles like this already for the european market. * epa mileage is measured on a rolling road. from what i gather, vehicle mass is not taken into account in that testing - the rollers used have fixed resistance. a heavy vehicle is going to read the same as a light vehicle if they had the same motor. and that's not real world. >> So basically what Mike is asking small car owners to do is to accomidate him >> because he is a pussy. So instead of buiying a 15 thousand dollar gas saver, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna which have lower driver fatality > rates than any "full size" SUV > clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and > frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no > sense. Although, if you are talking about US imports, we don't buy much oil from hostiles - Venezuela is the top of the hostile oil supplier list at 13% of our imports. Canada is our #1 source of imported oil at 22%, Mexico is #2 at 19%, Saudi Arabia is #3 at 16%. It's been that way for a long time. In fact, according to the US Dept of Energy, 55% of our oil imports come from the western hemisphere. http://tinyurl.com/7ldt Another 16% comes from Saudi Arabia, with which we have better relations than we do with some of our supposed allies. Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are the only mid-east countries to even make the list. (Iraq is only 5.5% of our imports and Kuwait is only 1.5%, for those oil-for-war theorists out there.) And US oil consumption is still only about what it was in 1978. Over the last quarter century US oil consumption has fluctuated only about 20% from present values, 25% from the 1983 minimum. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld007.htm Mike >> clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and >> frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fact, according to the US Dept of Energy, 55% of our oil imports come from > the western hemisphere. For further clarification of "hemisphere", I'll share some enlightenment from the commander in chief: "Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."—Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000 > >> clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and > >> frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."—Austin, Texas, Dec. > 20, 2000 Did you know if you drill deep enough you can find natural gas anywhere, even in your own backyard? Bet you, JSB didn't know that. Signaturecarpetbagger: a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist >> >> clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and >> >> frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Did you know if you drill deep enough you can find natural gas anywhere, > even in your own backyard? Bet you, JSB didn't know that. If you believed that cutting off your pecker would somehow distract from your master's foolishness, you'd have the cleaver out instantly. :-) Finding NG is not the problem, getting it to market is the problem. If you ever fly over the Gulf of Mexico, look down. All those fires you will see are the oil wells burning off millions of CF of NG every year, because the environmental laws, pushed by the environuts in the US, prevent it from being distributed through the country. Typical stupid 'go good' thinking of the lefty kooks mike >> In article <AnOhi.11291$ya1.651@news02.roc.ny>, >> Did you know if you drill deep enough you can find natural gas anywhere, >> even in your own backyard? Bet you, JSB didn't know that. > > If you believed that cutting off your pecker would somehow distract from > your master's foolishness, you'd have the cleaver out instantly. :-) > Finding NG is not the problem, getting it to market is the problem. If you > ever fly over the Gulf of Mexico, look down. All those fires you will see > are the oil wells burning off millions of CF of NG every year, because the > environmental laws, pushed by the environuts in the US, prevent it from > being distributed through the country. Typical stupid 'go good' thinking of > the lefty kooks So the oil drilling companies only employ left handed people. Mike your prejudices are showing again! >> >> clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and >> >> frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Did you know if you drill deep enough you can find natural gas anywhere, > even in your own backyard? Bet you, JSB didn't know that. Further hemispheric clarification: "Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious—I'm gracious that my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well."—Miami, Fla., June 4, 2001 > > Although, if you are talking about US imports, we don't buy much oil from > > hostiles - Venezuela is the top of the hostile oil supplier list at 13% of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."-Austin, Texas, Dec. > 20, 2000 As a public service, please accompany any quotes of George W. Bush with his blood alcohol level at the time he spoke those words. >> > Although, if you are talking about US imports, we don't buy much oil >> > from [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > As a public service, please accompany any quotes of George W. Bush > with his blood alcohol level at the time he spoke those words. 19.7 >>>> Although, if you are talking about US imports, we don't buy much oil >>>> from [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > 19.7 George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before he became President. I am not suggesting that it is not concerning that he made all those comments while he was sober, either. Jeff >>>>> Although, if you are talking about US imports, we don't buy much oil >>>>> from [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Jeff Excellent. > George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before > he became President. It wasn't alcohol-free beer that he drank at the recent G-8 summit in Germany, nor did he miss next morning's activities solely due to tummy trouble. At least he didn't get drunk and shoot someone in the face, as Cheney did. >> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before >> he became President. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > trouble. At least he didn't get drunk and shoot someone in the face, > as Cheney did. He did fondle the nice chancellor of Germany once. I wonder what was in his water glass. >> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before >> he became President. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > trouble. At least he didn't get drunk and shoot someone in the face, > as Cheney did. Please provide evidence about how much beer he drank in Germany. My understanding is that he doesn't drink at all any more. Jeff >>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before >>> he became President. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jeff Maybe. I still wonder why he fondled the chancellor, though. >>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before >>>> he became President. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Maybe. I still wonder why he fondled the chancellor, though. You know, when you make up things about the President, you hurt your argument. You should know better. After all, he does so much to hurt his own cause. Jeff >>>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long >>>>> before [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Jeff Because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you one chance to recant your statement before I provide you with video footage of Bush inappropriately touching the chancellor, and her reaction. Do you recant your statement? >>>>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long >>>>>> before [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Do you recant your statement? Why would I recant my statement? I have no knowledge of the President touching her in any appropriate way, and your state behavior to date doesn't give me much confidence in your statement. Jeff >>>>>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long >>>>>>> before [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > touching her in any appropriate way, and your state behavior to date > doesn't give me much confidence in your statement. It was on TV news broadcasts at the time, & if you Google "Bush German Chancellor" you can find articles about it, along w/video, no problem. He gave her an uninvited shoulder massage as he passed behind her chair, & her body language reaction was along the lines of "Arghhh" or "Iccck!" Cathy > Jeff >>>>>>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long >>>>>>>> before [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > gave her an uninvited shoulder massage as he passed behind her chair, & her > body language reaction was along the lines of "Arghhh" or "Iccck!" I would not use the word "fondle" to describe this. Jeff > Cathy > >> Jeff >> It was on TV news broadcasts at the time, & if you Google "Bush German >> Chancellor" you can find articles about it, along w/video, no problem. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jeff You wouldn't, but her reaction clearly indicated that it was inappropriate and undesirable. >>> It was on TV news broadcasts at the time, & if you Google "Bush German >>> Chancellor" you can find articles about it, along w/video, no problem. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You wouldn't, but her reaction clearly indicated that it was inappropriate > and undesirable. We saw what? six seconds of action? We don't know the context. It could have been highly offensive or just a joke or a gesture of friendship. And, IMHO, her reaction indicated surprise at an unexpected shoulder massage. From what I've read, it was just a friendly gesture that had no sexual connotation at all. At any rate, I disagree with calling this 3 second shoulder rub, undesirable or not, "fondling." Jeff >>>> It was on TV news broadcasts at the time, & if you Google "Bush German >>>> Chancellor" you can find articles about it, along w/video, no problem. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > At any rate, I disagree with calling this 3 second shoulder rub, > undesirable or not, "fondling." Look at her facial expression & the tenseness of her shoulders, up in the air. That overture was obviously *not* a welcome one. (I hope Laura gave him hell about it later; nothing to do w/jealousy, but re: the inappropriateness of the touch.) Cathy > Jeff >>>>> It was on TV news broadcasts at the time, & if you Google "Bush German >>>>> Chancellor" you can find articles about it, along w/video, no problem. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > him hell about it later; nothing to do w/jealousy, but re: the > inappropriateness of the touch.) She was surprised. The is what her facial expression shows to me. She appeared to smile as he walked away. I know what the overall context is, but I don't know whether they were just meeting or chatting a few minutes before they were sitting down or what. That is the context to which I am referring. I fail to see what the big deal of this is. A shoulder rub when hundreds of thousands of American lives are disrupted by a war? This disccussion is a waste of electrons. Unless you have somethng substantial to say, I won't have anything else to say on it. Jeff > Cathy > >> Jeff >>>>>> It was on TV news broadcasts at the time, & if you Google "Bush >>>>>> German Chancellor" you can find articles about it, along w/video, no [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > She was surprised. The is what her facial expression shows to me. She > appeared to smile as he walked away. When I touch a woman's shoulders, she definitely does not throw her hands up in the air. She melts. > Unless you have somethng substantial to say, I won't have anything else to > say on it. > Jeff Translation: You are rationalizing bad behavior because you are deeply in love with Bush. "I know how hard it is to put food on your family". He said that. What do you think about that statement? "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:HhRii.11501> > "I know how hard it is to put food on your family". He said that. What do > you think about that statement? I think you are too much concerned about appearance and too little concerned about substance. GWB has never claimed to be good at speaking exemporaneously, and I share the same problem. It is amazing to me that some people are articulate, or can play musical instruments, or can juggle chainsaws. Not all of the people who can do those things are very intelligent, though; those are merely individual talents. Just ignore the malicious gossip and you will do better. Mike Mike > "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:HhRii.11501> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Mike We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of my list for a president, and Bush does not meet that qualification unless he has a script. > We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of > qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of my > list for a president, and Bush does not meet that qualification unless he > has a script. The concept of communication from the president to the public is a very recent one, one I feel mirrors the rise of the entertainment industry as each is dependent on commmunication technology. Personally, I would not want a glib incompetent in the office. I acknowledge that a lot of people feel President Bush is an incompetent and that is certainly their right. But I can't recall a single accusation that he failed to clearly instruct the people who report to him, and that is the real importance of communication ability. You are aware that the overwhelming majority of quotations ascribed to politicians are fabricated, and it is to your credit you used one that wasn't. Mike >> We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of >> qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of my [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Mike I wasn't aware that one was fabricated. How did you find that out? There are plenty that come with video footage, and are equally pathetic. "This process has been drug out a long time, which says to me it's political."—Discussing the controversy surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Sofia, Bulgaria, June 11, 2007 The video is here. His stupidity is at approximately 23:18 (23 minutes and 18 seconds). http://mfile.akamai.com/5913/wmv/whitehouse.download.akamai.com/5913/2007/06/200 70611-1.v.asx There is no way you can possibly explain away things like this. And don't tell me "drug out" was the Texan way of saying things. "The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear—I'm a commander guy."—Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007 Video: http://mfile.akamai.com/5913/wmv/whitehouse.download.akamai.com/5913/2007/05/200 70502-2.v.asx Stupidity at 53:41 Commander guy??? >>> We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of >>> qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of my [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I wasn't aware that one was fabricated. How did you find that out? I must be miscommunicating; "the overwhelming majority of quotations ascribed to politicians are fabricated, and it is to your credit you used one that wasn't." That one was not. Mike >>>> We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of >>>> qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Mike I think I distrefelated what you said. Now I done seen it, tho. >> We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of >> qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of my [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > politicians are fabricated, and it is to your credit you used one that > wasn't. With GWB, so many of his flubs have been recorded live, that I bet it'd be difficult to find one that was fabricated! Cathy P.S. I'd live to trim the x-posting, but I don't know which of those ngs you're posting from! > Mike >>> We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of >>> qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of my [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > P.S. I'd live to ...or love to (hey, the i *is* next to the o!) trim the x-posting, but I don't know which of those ngs > you're posting from! > >> Mike >> You are aware that the overwhelming majority of quotations ascribed to >> politicians are fabricated, and it is to your credit you used one that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > P.S. I'd live to trim the x-posting, but I don't know which of those ngs > you're posting from! I'm in alt.autos.honda. Where are you? Snopes has only a limited selection of the verbal flubs attributed to GWB - it looks like they have more for Marion Barry (whom I don't support, but who also doesn't deserve all the spoofs gone wrong.) Ditto with John Kerry and everybody else who is mischaracterized: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp You'll notice even the single misquote of this selection properly attributed to GWB was correct in it's original form. Still, none of them are as juicy in my opinion as the faux pas made by TheAirCar as they tried to translate their promo material to english: "in three words: the future is now. " http://www.theaircar.com/thecar.html Mike >> P.S. I'd love to trim the x-posting, but I don't know which of those ngs >> you're posting from! > I'm in alt.autos.honda. Where are you? alt.autos.toyota. Cathy > >> P.S. I'd love to trim the x-posting, but I don't know which of those ngs > >> you're posting from! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cathy Ah, we have a match. Signaturecarpetbagger: a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist >>> You are aware that the overwhelming majority of quotations ascribed to >>> politicians are fabricated, and it is to your credit you used one that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Mike "I've reminded the prime minister—the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship."—Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006 Video: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060629-3.v.smil You only need to suffer for about 40 seconds before witnessing the stupidity. > "I've reminded the prime minister-the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, > over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You only need to suffer for about 40 seconds before witnessing the > stupidity. It is a mistake to confuse inarticulateness with stupidity. I, too, wish I could speak like Winston Churchill did but it ain't gonna happen. On the flip side, riveting oration does not guarantee fitness. Adolph Hitler was a stunning orator and a brilliant tactician - give the devil his due - but there was a smoking crater where his humanity should have been. Or, as Bill Watterson observed about his comic creation Calvin, "I prize his ability to precisely articulate stupid ideas." It's a wonder any of us can speak our thoughts at all. Consider it; we have abstract thought patterns often unlike anything in the natural world (this subject is a good example). Those thoughts have to be framed in a language as abstruse as English, given reasonable syntax, and then translated into a coordinated muscular action that forms recognizable words from movements of the diaphragm, larynx, throat, soft palate, tongue, jaw and lips. There isn't even time to "proofhear" what we are going to say. Somebody once pointed out that communication must have the power to shock. Saying "it is cold today" to somebody who is sharing the weather is pointless; it conveys nothing. Saying "Our tears give God his power" is profound, but it was scripted (South Park, 'Cartmanland.') It is no surprise the most profound ideas are written before they are spoken because epiphanies are not normally verbal in character. We do not speak of the importance of speeches as much as we do the importance of writings, and not only because speech is ephemeral. Lincoln's 'Gettysburg Address' and Hitler's 'Night and Fog' speeches are remembered not for their profound content but for the emotional effect they had and for the actions that grew from each. For all that, each of those was scripted. Or, as I would have put it in person, "You see, um, I think - or I would think - you, or we, should, um...." Mike >> "I've reminded the prime minister-the American people, Mr. Prime >> Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > It is a mistake to confuse inarticulateness with stupidity. Perhaps, but as I said before, there are some jobs which, in MY opinion, require clarity of communication. So, let's replace "stupidity" with "incompetence". There are other examples. Some years ago, Kodak created a bit of a ruckus when it refused to consider one of its employees who had applied for a different job within the company. He wanted to be one of the people who stands at a podium and speaks to audiences from the investment industry. One problem: As a speaker, he was only fluent in ebonics. The news mentioned threats of a lawsuit for racial discrimination. I assume Al Sharpton never got wind of the story, or he would've made a trip to Rochester to spew his nonsense. I don't recall how it ended, but it did so quietly. I suspect someone explained to the guy that if someone spoke only Romanian, they would not have been considered for the job either. He was probably a smart guy, but if you can't tell, than who cares? Back to your president: What indication do YOU have that his speech isn't telling the truth about his intelligence? Please don't say "Yale". > Back to your president: > > What indication do YOU have that his speech isn't telling the truth about > his intelligence? Please don't say "Yale". Not my president - our president. We've had more than forty of them and (excepting Lincoln) they were all our presidents. (I only voted for GWB the second time around - in 2000 I wrote in a candidate.) Clinton was my president too, although I never voted for him. I was dubious about Bush's abilities until he had to deal with the California electric power crisis in 2001. Governor Gray Davis of California was lobbying Bush for tighter price caps on electricity at a time when wholesale prices were running wild. Bush refused to do that (by executive order) because it would make the situation worse. It wasn't obvious - I had to think about it - but it was certainly true. Capping electric prices would ensure there would be no increase in generation because the product would probably have to be sold at a loss. Letting the reins go was painful for everybody involved at the time, but it created a "gold rush" for new generation that brought new power plants on line in record time. (Good thing, too; historically the average time to complete a proposed plant is 15 years.) The utility I work for built two peaking plants in less than two years. For behind-the-scenes accomplishments (always a cheat for the president responsible because reporters and commentators don't want to talk about them) Bush helped put together the Israeli land concession to Palestine. That the Palestinians threw away their chance by electing Hamas was too bad, but the concession had the potential to stop the bleeding in one of the hottest spots in the mid-east. I am disappointed with Bush's performance in the last year or two, but we've seen second term presidents get froggy before. My conservative friends disapprove of my admiration for Franklin Roosevelt, but for sustained leadership of the US he simply has no peers. Roosevelt and Reagan presided over two amazing economic turnarounds and each deserves recognition. GWB merely applied Reagan's principal of reducing tax burden to pull us out of a relatively minor slump. Mike >> Back to your president: >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Mike I didn't vote for his father, but I was OK with calling him our president because he was not a fool. I have disowned his son, though, because in his own small mind, he is using faith as a reason to kill our soldiers. So, he's your president, but certainly not mine. Faith has no place outside of family life. When used to kill other people's kids, we're getting into a constitutional problem, at least in the United States of America. As far as his speech issues, we'll continue to differ on this. I have no way of spending large amounts of time with GWB, so I don't know how he would handle daily problems without a support staff. I do not believe he had much to do with any positive events during his presidency. > So, he's >your president, but certainly not mine. Where is the $500,000.00 you owe, druggie Joey? SignatureScott in Florida There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. Will Rogers (1879 - 1935) > I didn't vote for his father, but I was OK with calling him our president > because he was not a fool. I have disowned his son, though, because in his [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would handle daily problems without a support staff. I do not believe he > had much to do with any positive events during his presidency. I lost faith in GHW Bush when he refused to acknowledge he sold the 1991 economic policy to Congress in return for support in Desert Shield / Desert Storm. I can accept realpolitik, but he lacked the guts to stand up and admit it. Bush senior was never a strong leader. As far as the Iraq war, there was never any doubt it was necessary. CIA intel was the very least of it; UNSCOM had been driven out of Iraq even after Tariq Aziz admitted to them the existence of enough botulinum toxin to depopulate a continent and 8000 liters of VX - enough to fill 11 of their standard chemical shells and kill up to a million civilians apiece in crowded cities by devices deliverable by small airplanes or even cars. In the final UNMOVIC report, days before the invasion, it was recognized there was no evidence the VX had been destroyed as claimed nor any rationalization of why that would have happened. When Russia told us the time is near it was time to make the move. How would you feel about GWB if he had presided over the slaughter of ten million Americans and allowed Saddam to hold himself up as the one who could lead the Faithful everywhere to victory over the unbelievers? Or would that have been a smart chance to take? There also was never any doubt this is global Islamic revolution in progress. Our infotainment sources tend to focus on the middle east while the South Pacific and Africa go largely unnoticed. Iran has never made any bones about declaring themselves to be the nucleus of Islamic revolution to replace the last Caliph, who was deposed in 1924. Al Qaida publicly declares their television programming to be "the Voice of the Caliphate." Saddam occupied the seat of the Four Righteous Caliphs - Baghdad. I'm sure you're right about all this being irreconcilable between us. In case you're wondering, it doesn't diminish my opinion of you - you have stood your ground well. I value worthy adversaries much more than I do people who happen to agree with me without giving it any thought. Mike >> I didn't vote for his father, but I was OK with calling him our president >> because he was not a fool. I have disowned his son, though, because in [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Mike You might find this interesting. Your library may have it: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=978039306211 3&itm=1 We're dealing with Northern Ireland in the Middle East, but Bush has no idea of the similarities, and how he's botching it. This is because he does not read. > I lost faith in GHW Bush when he refused to acknowledge he sold the 1991 > economic policy to Congress in return for support in Desert Shield / Desert > Storm. I can accept realpolitik, but he lacked the guts to stand up and > admit it. Bush senior was never a strong leader. President George Bush was out of touch with the average American's everyday life -- he visited a supermarket in 1984 and was amazed that price scanners existed, and in one campaign speech he shouted for the rights of owners of S corporations, as if there was a massive public outcry for them. OTOH Bush did well handling Reagan's worst economic mistakes, the deficit and the savings & loan crisis, and he knew how to deal with the Soviets and Chinese. And the way he led the Gulf War was simply brilliant -- organizing a true international coalition, exhausting diplomacy before taking any military action, and going in with enough troops to win decisively. > As far as the Iraq war, there was never any doubt it was necessary. CIA > intel was the very least of it; UNSCOM had been driven out of Iraq even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was no evidence the VX had been destroyed as claimed nor any rationalization > of why that would have happened. But the war was completely wrong for our interests, as I've consistently maintained since 2002, and that was assuming that we'd fight Iraq the right way, with a true international force that included at least 500,000 Americans and the co-opting of the Iraqi military and police early after military victory. Saddam simply had no nuclear weapons and only insignificant amounts of chemical and biological weapons (and no credible ways to deliver them), wasn't cooperating with any international terrorists, and had been too well penned-up by British and American air patrols. The chief UN weapons inspector said nothing had been found in Iraq, and his team had been given fairly free reign (as free as could be expected from a huffy dictator) to check almost everything in Iraq, and they stopped their work only because of impending US invasion. > When Russia told us the time is near it was time to make the move. Vladimir Putin has long been fence sitting between the US and China, and with the Iraq war he probably thought it was better to side with the US because he expected us to be the winner.. > How would you feel about GWB if he had presided over > the slaughter of ten million Americans and allowed Saddam to hold himself up > as the one who could lead the Faithful everywhere to victory over the > unbelievers? Or would that have been a smart chance to take? And what if any president allowed tens of millions of Americans to die because he failed to go to war against Iran? IOW your scenario about Iraq never had any credibility among people who knew even the basics about the Middle East, and the invasion of Iraq was never a smart bet. > There also was never any doubt this is global Islamic revolution in > progress. Saddam hated the Islamic revolution, which was probably why Iraq under Saddam had no al Qaeda presense. > Our infotainment sources tend to focus on the middle east while > the South Pacific and Africa go largely unnoticed. I'm sure the news broadcasts in China pay lots of attention to those regions because the Chinese government certainly has. They've recently been playing their economic and diplomatic hands brilliantly, plus our actions of the past six years have made things easier for them. Something is really wrong in the world when people in most nations approve more of China than the US. > Iran has never made any bones about declaring themselves to be > the nucleus of Islamic revolution to replace the last Caliph, who > was deposed in 1924. Al Qaida publicly declares their television > programming to be "the Voice of the Caliphate." Saddam > occupied the seat of the Four Righteous Caliphs - Baghdad. Then how should we handle Iran and the Islamic revolution? I don't think that taking away Iran's most important enemy in the Middle East was a good idea, nor was it smart to let the nations that perceived us as being invincible in early 2002 (when we had just taken over Afghanistan) to realize that we weren't invincible after all, something the Iraq war has done. > But the war was completely wrong for our interests, as I've > consistently maintained since 2002, and that was assuming that we'd [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cooperating with any international terrorists, and had been too well > penned-up by British and American air patrols. Actually, we knew he had at one time truly staggering amounts of chemical weapons. No nuclear or biological weapons as far as we could tell. UNSCOM had found the paperwork - dictatorships are remarkably dependent on subordinates documenting just what they are doing - but little of the material was brought forward by Saddam's regime. Richard Butler, the chairman of UNSCOM, reported his team being held at gunpoint at one site as trucks roared in and out. See "The Greatest Threat" by Richard Butler. The problem wasn't that we didn't find any so much as we knew it was somewhere and we didn't know where. The view that he didn't have large amounts of chemical weapons is popular among politicians who never had any responsibility for containing the threat, but is absurd in light of the UN teams' findings. > The chief UN weapons inspector said nothing had been found in Iraq, > and his team had been given fairly free reign (as free as could be [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Iraq never had any credibility among people who knew even the basics > about the Middle East, and the invasion of Iraq was never a smart bet. I concede Iran is a tough nut to crack. Iraq as an institution was never a threat - the threat was contained in the person of Saddam Hussein. Iran and Al Qaeda are institutional threats - it really doesn't matter who is the leader at any particular time. Al Qaeda's time is running out; since their moment in the sun they have been smothered wherever they try to show their power. That is bad news for them, although they could still flare up. Iran is much tougher. The revolution is nearly 30 years old - more than a generation - and they can legitimately claim to have stood up against the US and prospered (relatively, anyway.) Their technological capacity must not be underestimated. There was a simple military solution to the Hussein threat - eliminate him and the threat is effectively quashed. Everything that followed is housekeeping, regardless of the distortions of our perspective. We could leave now and only the Iraqis would suffer unless Iran decides to invade. There is no obvious solution - military, diplomatic or otherwise - to the threat Iran poses to the world. >> There also was never any doubt this is global Islamic revolution in >> progress. > > Saddam hated the Islamic revolution, which was probably why Iraq under > Saddam had no al Qaeda presense. Saddam was a competitor to the Islamic revolution in Iran and to al Qaeda. He never made a secret that he was competing for Arab leader, a position also sought by Khadaffi and Hafez al-Assad. Since Iran isn't arab and since revolutions make neighbors nervous, Saddam found wide support for what the Arab world knows as the Gulf War. The popular American explanation for the incursion was to seize the Shatt al-Arab, a silty and shallow waterway that could have provided a port for Iraq. Trouble is, Iraq could have leased it for a song if Iran actually controlled it and would not have been faced with the hopeless task of holding the land. What's more, the disputed border ran right through the middle of the waterway, giving Iraq no gain for their losses. American references to this war tend to portray both sides as stupidly fighting for unimportant borders, a view that doesn't do justice to the canny political strategies of each. For all that, barely a year after the bitter eight year war that ended in Iraq slinking away from the conflict, Saddam sent the remains of his air force to Iran rather than lose it to the Allies. >> Our infotainment sources tend to focus on the middle east while >> the South Pacific and Africa go largely unnoticed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > them. Something is really wrong in the world when people in most > nations approve more of China than the US. Something is wrong with us if we care. Each nation must chart its own course, and of all the other nations of the world only Israel can understand what it is like to be the nation that must be subjugated in order for terrorists to be elevated to power. In the '30s the US leaned toward joining Germany in the fight against its neighbors, not for reasons of our own convictions but because of sympathies. This time we should get a backbone so we don't help plunge the world into a new dark age. >> Iran has never made any bones about declaring themselves to be >> the nucleus of Islamic revolution to replace the last Caliph, who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Afghanistan) to realize that we weren't invincible after all, > something the Iraq war has done. I have an idea but I don't see it beginning. Iran is about a prize, and that prize is probably indestructible. Islam is not going away and there must be a leader to fill the vacuum. There are three generally accepted ways a Caliph may gain power. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/politics/khalifa.html One way is to be named by the present Caliph, so that's out. Another is to seize the office through force, as long as the duties of the office are fulfilled - that's the path the contestants are seeking now. The third is by a selection process reminiscent of the way a Pope is chosen. If we were to encourage the election of a Caliph Iran would find the carpet pulled from under them but would not lose face nor lose power within their own country. That would be fine with me. Mike > > But the war was completely wrong for our interests, as I've > > consistently maintained since 2002, and that was assuming that we'd [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > responsibility for containing the threat, but is absurd in light of the UN > teams' findings. Either Butler was wrong, his successor's (Hans Blix's?) inspection team was wrong when they failed to find chemical weapons, or Saddam eliminated his chemical weapons by the time the latter came in. BTW, I believe Butler opposed the 2003 invasion. > > The chief UN weapons inspector said nothing had been found in Iraq, > > and his team had been given fairly free reign (as free as could be > > expected from a huffy dictator) to check almost everything in Iraq, > > and they stopped their work only because of impending US invasion. > How would you feel about GWB if he had presided over > the slaughter of ten million Americans and allowed Saddam to hold himself [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > invade. There is no obvious solution - military, diplomatic or otherwise - > to the threat Iran poses to the world. Al Qaeda will fail because it's so repressive that it can't gain the support of the masses the way Ho Chi Mien did, and not having a single national base is a big handicap, despite the powerful draw of Islam, because tribalism and nationalism trump everything else. > There also was never any doubt this is global Islamic revolution in > progress. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Iraq slinking away from the conflict, Saddam sent the remains of his air > force to Iran rather than lose it to the Allies. I believe President George Bush thought Saddam could become another Hitler and had to be nipped in the bud by forcing him out of Kuwait. > Our infotainment sources tend to focus on the middle east while > the South Pacific and Africa go largely unnoticed. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Something is wrong with us if we care. Not in this case because it's a sign that we failed. OTOH after 9/11 and our Afghanistan war victory, our popularity was at its height and gave us an opportunity to accomplish a lot internationally because the world was strongly on our side then. Unfortunately GW Bush failed to exploit that opportunity. > Iran has never made any bones about declaring themselves to be > the nucleus of Islamic revolution to replace the last Caliph, who [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > under them but would not lose face nor lose power within their own country. > That would be fine with me. Because we're bogged down in Iraq and look weak, I don't see how we can influence in the internal workings of the Iranian government, and we may have to wait until it collapses from its own mistakes or from old age > (I only voted for GWB the second time around - in 2000 I wrote > in a candidate.) > I was dubious about Bush's abilities until he had to deal with the > California electric power crisis in 2001. Governor Gray Davis of California [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > but the concession had the potential to stop the bleeding in one of the > hottest spots in the mid-east. Those aren't sufficient reasons to approve of any president. Character matters much more, and GW Bush has the character of a spoiled, lazy rich kid who's never accomplished anything on his own. A person who commands a military powerful enough to change the fate of the world (positively or negatively) should be much better than him. The Callifornia electric power crisis wasn't caused primarily by shortages of capacity but by Enron manipulating the market, as court records, including audio recordings, have shown, and planning the ouster of Grey Davis to have him replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger. That's not to say Davis had even an ounce of competence in him. Until 9/11, GW Bush virtually ignored international affairs -- just as he said he would, and rather than continue the existing peace process he abandoned it and let the Israeli-Palestinian situation drift into crisis. And when he finally did get the US back into negotiations, he foolishly pressured the Palestinians to hold the election that gave undeniable legitimacy to Hamas, which won about 70% of the vote. > Roosevelt and Reagan presided over two amazing economic > turnarounds and each deserves recognition. GWB merely applied > Reagan's principal of reducing tax burden to pull us out of a > relatively minor slump. FDR did far too little to turn around the economy. All he did was give people hope, and it was the WWII spending that finally made the economy recover. Neither did Reagan create an economic miracle. Rather, he became President at the time when the OPEC cartel was cracking (i.e., the Saudis were tired of holding back production) and Fed chairman Paul Volcker's draconian tight money policy had been squeezing out inflation. The recovery wasn't amazing but only average, and Reagan's 30% supply side tax cut had to be trimmed back to about a 25% one, which was what Jimmy Carter had initially proposed. The GWB economic recovery also hasn't been spectacular, with very few new jobs being created and median incomes being almost flat, and the only reason big budget deficits have been tolerable is because China has prevented labor inflation. > The Callifornia electric power crisis wasn't caused primarily by > shortages of capacity but by Enron manipulating the market, as court > records, including audio recordings, have shown, and planning the > ouster of Grey Davis to have him replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger. > That's not to say Davis had even an ounce of competence in him. Did you ever wonder why California and not surrounding states? Sadly, legislation more than a decade old was at the root of California's crisis. California was on the bleeding edge of the deregulation experiment, and they effectively shut themselves out of the power market. Unbelievably, Southern California Edison and PG&E were forbidden to buy power generated in California! In addition, long term contracts were forbidden, forcing California utilities to buy on the far more expensive spot market. San Diego Gas and Electric was not constrained in that way - I don't know why. Everybody else had the entire market from which to choose for the modest amounts they hadn't contracted, so California power producers had to compete with everybody while California power providers had to buy from a smaller market that was already heavily committed by contracts. Supply and demand got the frenzy going, and some power producers and wholesalers began gaming the market to squeeze spot buyers harder. Enron was the worst of the gamesters, but dozens of power producers and wholesalers were investigated (including the utility I work for, which has both production and provider branches) and about half were faulted. California hasn't learned a thing. Legislation signed in recent months now prohibits the purchase of power produced by coal once present contracts expire in 2012 and 2017. Unless things shift dramatically by then half the power generated in the American West will be bought by everybody else at a bargain and California will wonder why they pay so much more. Mike >> We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of >> qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You are aware that the overwhelming majority of quotations ascribed to > politicians are fabricated, E.g., "I invented the Internet". A Gore >>> We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of >>> qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of my [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >A Gore Of course he never said that, your quotation marks notwithstanding. On 7/10/2007 12:49 AM Gordon McGrew spake these words of knowledge: >>>> We'll agree to differ on the subject, then. I have my own list of >>>> qualifications for certain jobs. Clear communication is at the top of my [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Of course he never said that, your quotation marks notwithstanding. Gord - that's what he was saying. Read above. RFT!!! Dave Kelsen SignatureI traded in my WWJD bracelet for one with "WWSDD" on it. Not only is the "What Would Snoop Dogg Do?" bracelet a lot flashier, but the answer is always, "Light up a spliff and hit the strip club." -- Brad Wilkerson >>> You are aware that the overwhelming majority of quotations ascribed to >>> politicians are fabricated, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Of course he never said that, your quotation marks notwithstanding. I think that was the point, that Gore had been misquoted with that line. I am not a Gore fan but nobody deserves to be slandered. >>>> You are aware that the overwhelming majority of quotations ascribed to >>>> politicians are fabricated, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I think that was the point, that Gore had been misquoted with that line. I >am not a Gore fan but nobody deserves to be slandered. My apologies. I am so used to right-wingers throwing out non sequiturs that I didn't read it carefully. I will administer the lashes to myself. On 7/4/2007 1:42 PM JoeSpareBedroom spake these words of knowledge: >> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:HhRii.11501> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > list for a president, and Bush does not meet that qualification unless he > has a script. I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Our next President should be fluent in at least one language". RFT!!! Dave Kelsen Signature"Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just as Secretariat and Mr. Ed were both horses." -- James Rhodes >>>>>> It was on TV news broadcasts at the time, & if you Google "Bush >>>>>> German Chancellor" you can find articles about it, along w/video, no [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > just meeting or chatting a few minutes before they were sitting down or > what. That is the context to which I am referring. A hint to you then, just in case: Do not emulate GWB. Whether you're at a mtg. or not, do not rub a female colleague's shoulders as you walk by her. There's a good chance it won't be particularly well received. Cathy > I fail to see what the big deal of this is. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >>> Jeff >>>> It was on TV news broadcasts at the time, & if you Google "Bush German >>>> Chancellor" you can find articles about it, along w/video, no problem. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jeff The context? They're at a friggin' conference table at the G8 summit, in front of television cameras, you knucklehead! How old are you? >>>>>>>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long >>>>>>>>> before [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > I would not use the word "fondle" to describe this. I would! Men do *not* go around giving women shoulder rubs unless they are close to eachother & it's understood to be an invited touch. Cathy > It was on TV news broadcasts at the time, & if you Google "Bush German > Chancellor" you can find articles about it, along w/video, no problem. He > gave her an uninvited shoulder massage as he passed behind her chair, & > her body language reaction was along the lines of "Arghhh" or "Iccck!" > > Cathy Why, the swine! Guys at work occasionally do that to me, too, and I'm mostly bald. She reacted much like a traditional Navajo does if you extend your hand to shake theirs. Darned cultural differences. Mike >>>>>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long >>>>>>> before [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Jeff Jeff, you really need to become a better citizen and pay attention to the news. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/20/tech/main1823983.shtml http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dfrHT8o-0A I play in a band, so obviously, I spend lots of time observing drunk people. What Bush did is pretty common* behavior for drunk guys in bars. They have no clue about the physical space that most people consider the norm. They walk up to a woman and massage her shoulders, but since they have no idea how to do it, they annoy the woman, and perhaps give her a muscle knot that hurts for 20 minutes. A second definition, applicable to Bush's behavior in the video: Common - 5 a: falling below ordinary standards : second-rate b: lacking refinement : coarse >>>>>>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long >>>>>>>> before [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/20/tech/main1823983.shtml The CBS news describes her reaction as: "The chancellor immediately hunches her shoulders, throws her arms up and grimaces, though she appears to smile as Mr. Bush walks away." How horrible. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dfrHT8o-0A > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > how to do it, they annoy the woman, and perhaps give her a muscle knot that > hurts for 20 minutes. Gee, it didn't look like a bar to me. I saw no evidence that Bush was drunk, and to the best of my knowledge, Bush has not had a drink since before he first ran for President. > A second definition, applicable to Bush's behavior in the video: > Common - 5 a: falling below ordinary standards : second-rate b: lacking > refinement : coarse I am not going to judge him on a silly little backrub when I all I saw was 5 seconds of video out of context. Unless you have something substantial to add to this conversation, I am not going to reply to you again on this. IMHO, it was a innocent should rub, a sign of friendship. Your jumping to a conclusion that Mr. Bush was drinking and calling it fondling, IMHO, is totally off-base. Jeff >>>>>>>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long >>>>>>>>> before [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > IMHO, it was a innocent should rub, a sign of friendship. If that's what GWB thought, he better get a clue, re: social norms. Cathy > Your jumping to a conclusion that Mr. Bush was drinking and calling it > fondling, IMHO, is totally off-base. > > Jeff >>>>>>>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long >>>>>>>>> before [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Jeff I didn't say alcohol had anything to do with his behavior in the video. I mentioned the bar because alcohol *does* cause some people to lose touch with what is appropriate behavior. If anything, the conclusion you could draw was that Bush, being sober, should've known better. How old are you? > I have no knowledge of the President touching her in any appropriate way, I'm sure you've seen the video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IPArZwLHi2Y So what do you mean? Chancellor Merkel didn't seem to conider it appropriate touching. >> I have no knowledge of the President touching her in any appropriate way, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So what do you mean? Chancellor Merkel didn't seem to conider it > appropriate touching. And she was laughing as he was walking away. The reaction looks to me like it was surprise (You can see this more clearly in the video from CBS). I am not going to second guess Bush's intent or what was going on when it appears to 100% innocent. Jeff >>> I have no knowledge of the President touching her in any appropriate >>> way, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And she was laughing as he was walking away. Probably trying to be tactful, knowing she was being filmed. >>>> I have no knowledge of the President touching her in any appropriate >>>> way, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Probably trying to be tactful, knowing she was being filmed. Wow! You're learning to read minds like Mike Hunter. I just hope you are actually able to draw the correct conclusion every now and then. Jeff >>>>> I have no knowledge of the President touching her in any appropriate >>>>> way, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Wow! You're learning to read minds like Mike Hunter. I just hope you are > actually able to draw the correct conclusion every now and then. Well, what else would explain it? She looked majorly peeved at first, & I assume knew cameras were rolling. Cathy > Jeff > >>> Chancellor Merkel didn't seem to conider it appropriate touching. > >> And she was laughing as he was walking away. > > > > Probably trying to be tactful, knowing she was being filmed. > > Wow! You're learning to read minds like Mike Hunter. I just hope you are > actually able to draw the correct conclusion every now and then. JSB drew the correct conclusion, as anyone with even a basic understanding of social norms, facial expressions, and body language would have been able to do. It didn't take even a good poker player to read her right, so why do you think ESP was required? >>>>> Chancellor Merkel didn't seem to conider it appropriate touching. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would have been able to do. It didn't take even a good poker player > to read her right, so why do you think ESP was required? I disagree. From what I saw, she was surprised. But, when Bush was walking away, she was smiling (that was best viewed on the CBS video, not the ones YouTube - they were too short and didn't show Bush walking away). Whether she was trying to be tactful, because she was being filmed or not would require a mind-reader to figure out for sure. JBS, IMHO, doesn't qualify. I have never suggested Bush's behavior was appropriate. I disagree with your conclusion that you can make any conclusion, with just 5 seconds of video. We don't know if they were talking just before they sat down, what their interactions were like or why he did what he did. It may or may not have been totally innocent. I saw 20 seconds, at most, of video, taken out of context. I only know some of what happened, and only for 20 seconds. I am not going to judge anyone based on that. Jeff >>>>>> Chancellor Merkel didn't seem to conider it appropriate touching. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I have never suggested Bush's behavior was appropriate. You most certainly did. Now, I'd like to know where your wife works. I want to walk up to her and touch her, just to see what happens. I'm sure that's OK with you. >>>>>>> Chancellor Merkel didn't seem to conider it appropriate touching. >>>>>> And she was laughing as he was walking away. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Now, I'd like to know where your wife works. I want to walk up to her and > touch her, just to see what happens. I'm sure that's OK with you. Where did I suggest that it was appropriate? I said it may have been innocent. Innocent is not the same as appropriate. JEff >>>>>>>> Chancellor Merkel didn't seem to conider it appropriate touching. >>>>>>> And she was laughing as he was walking away. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > JEff Innocent, like a 3 year old child who's not yet familiar with societal norms? And...your wife. Where does she work. I want to touch her. > And...your wife. Where does she work. I want to touch her. Now that's just weird. People at work touch her all the time (nurses can't work without touching and being touched) but there is context to consider. Touching usually indicates purpose or familiarity - you lack familiarity and your purpose would be... ah, suspect. Mike Mike >> And...your wife. Where does she work. I want to touch her. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mike .....or behaving like a drunk in a bar. >>>>>>> Chancellor Merkel didn't seem to conider it appropriate touching. >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Now, I'd like to know where your wife works. I want to walk up to her and > touch her, just to see what happens. I'm sure that's OK with you. Funny - that happened to me. I suffer from PTSD and have only slowly adjusted to being touched at all. Last year I was working inside a truck and a co-worker came up behind me and poked me in the side. My reaction brought HR into the picture. The response from the female HR representative: touching in itself is permitted with the "bathing suit" restrictions unless and until the party being touched objects. (I have trouble adjusting to being hugged but I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings by objecting after it already happened.) I work for a Fortune 500 company in the US so I would expect this to be pretty mainstream. We may have personal standards that differ. As far as my wife goes, I would not object to somebody rubbing her shoulders in a public setting unless she gave me a look to make it stop. It really isn't a big deal to her - it's just part of her world. She's a hugger; I am not. BTW - my wife works in a nursing home. Patients' family members and co-workers hug her all the time. It would drive me crazy... and not just the hugging part. Mike >>> I have no knowledge of the President touching her in any appropriate >>> way, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I am not going to second guess Bush's intent or what was going on when it > appears to 100% innocent. Looks like we may need some desensitization training and consciousness lowering workshops. > >> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before > >> he became President. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Please provide evidence about how much beer he drank in Germany. The tummy ache excuse is way too coincidental to be credible. > My understanding is that he doesn't drink at all any more. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be to support it. So please provide 24/7 video and brain scans of GW Bush. His frequent odd public behavior can't be due to complete sobriety or abstinence from drugs. >>>> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before >>>> he became President. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The tummy ache excuse is way too coincidental to be credible. People get sick all the time. His father became ill when he was visiting Japan at one point in time when he was President. There are many reasons why people get sick. Drinking is one of them. Viruses and bacteria are others. >> My understanding is that he doesn't drink at all any more. > > The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence > must be to support it. So please provide 24/7 video and brain scans > of GW Bush. His frequent odd public behavior can't be due to complete > sobriety or abstinence from drugs. Sorry, I don't have a microscope powerful enough to see his brain. ;-) Despite this, Bush says he doesn't drink. http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm Jeff > George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before > he became President. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There are many reasons why people get sick. Drinking is one of them. > Viruses and bacteria are others. But it was already well known on the previous day that President Bush had been suffering from the flu. OTOH GW Bush had no cold or flu, his tummy ache came out of the blue, and nobody else at the summit experienced anything similar. > My understanding is that he doesn't drink at all any more. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sorry, I don't have a microscope powerful enough to see his brain. ;-) Nobody does. Nobody does. > Despite this, Bush says he doesn't drink. > http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm I don't believe him. He just doesn't act sober enough. I think moe n curly is a pot head. Prove me wrong moe n curly. Signaturecarpetbagger: a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist > I think moe n curly is a pot head. Prove me wrong moe n curly. Give us one example of how he might prove you wrong. You can't. >> I think moe n curly is a pot head. Prove me wrong moe n curly. > > Give us one example of how he might prove you wrong. You can't. Probably the same way that someone could prove that Bush has been clean and sober for quite a while now. moe n curly made the assertion that Bush was drunk, it is up to him to prove it. You cannot prove a negative. > > > In article <hKGdnRN5HbEBrRHbnZ2dnUVZ_oupn...@sedona.net>, > > > "Michael Pardee" <michaeltn...@cybertrails.com> wrote: > >> Despite this, Bush says he doesn't drink. > >> http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm > > I don't believe him. He just doesn't act sober enough. > > > > Could you enlighten us? I had an alcoholic father and an alcoholic > > > > stepmother, and I don't see the signs. > Larry moe 'n curly is a pot-head, he wouldn't know how to tell. > > Prove me wrong larry moe n curly. FedEx tracking shows that you signed for a package from me at 9:42 AM today, and inside was a 6-pack of Curly's Liquid Gold?, named by High Times magazine as the top-rated drug-free urine of 2006, along with instructions, lab test results, and "accessories". I manufacture every bit of Curly's Liquid Gold? myself ("Curly's personal touch goes into every can"), with help from lots of Gatorade and Yoo-Hoo chocolate soda, and demand is so high that I can't consume any controlled substances because that would affect the purity of the product and hurt my eBay rating. >> George W. Bush has not had any alcohol in a long time; since long before >> he became President. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > tummy ache came out of the blue, and nobody else at the summit > experienced anything similar. None of which proves that it was not a virus or bacteria. >> My understanding is that he doesn't drink at all any more. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nobody does. Nobody does. Electron microscopes and atomic force microscopes can. Read about them on Wikipedia, if you like. >> Despite this, Bush says he doesn't drink. >> http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm > > I don't believe him. He just doesn't act sober enough. Well, we'll have to agree to differ. Jeff >> Despite this, Bush says he doesn't drink. >> http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm > > I don't believe him. He just doesn't act sober enough. Could you enlighten us? I had an alcoholic father and an alcoholic stepmother, and I don't see the signs. Mike > >> Despite this, Bush says he doesn't drink. > >> http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/issues/l/aa001106a.htm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mike Larry moe 'n curly is a pot-head, he wouldn't know how to tell. Prove me wrong larry moe n curly. Signaturecarpetbagger: a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist >>> Although, if you are talking about US imports, we don't buy much oil from >>> hostiles - Venezuela is the top of the hostile oil supplier list at 13% of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > As a public service, please accompany any quotes of George W. Bush > with his blood alcohol level at the time he spoke those words. LOL - great post! >>clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and >>frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Mike That link is badly outdated as it reflects 1997-98 figures... JT >>>clearly, "safety" is not the true agenda - it's oil consumption. and >>>frankly, when we're buying it from a bunch of hostiles, that makes no [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > JT I used it because it shows the trend well. Nothing has changed; here's most of a decade later (same range, but loses the interesting stuff in the '70s) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Oil.html and the up-to-date figures in a chart format http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttupus1m.htm Comparing that to census numbers http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile1-1.txt the oil usage per capita is virtually identical to what it was in 1980; the population increased 22% while oil consumption increased 23% (1980-2000, the limits of the census numbers on that view). I haven't graphed the entire data set but just scanning the numbers and comparing it to the petroleum consumption graphs I'd be amazed to find a 5% variance in per capita consumption more than a couple places in the covered period. Mike The subject should be "Mike Hunter's smaller car conjecture." For it to be a thesis, he should have a clue. Walk and stay off the highways, you be safe and save a lot of gas. You be doing about 15 MPG of water. Ahh but wait you might get killed by a four or two legged creature walking. If you got to walk pack and if you pack carry P+. Life is a bitch and then you die, when it is your turn your gone belt or not. BuBa JoeBoB from S.C. ROFLMAO > The subject should be "Mike Hunter's smaller car conjecture." For it to be > a thesis, he should have a clue. On Jun 30, 6:39?pm, ";\)" <bum...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Walk and stay off the highways, you be safe and save a lot of gas. You be > doing about 15 MPG of water. ==================================== But bottled water costs four times as much as gas..... Notice how Mike Hunter totally avoided conversation on this piece. He cannot conversate outside of his swift comments and run routine. > "In the latest crash figures available from 2003, provided by the > Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 142 fatalities per [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car with > his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive structural design engineer, designing automobile crumple zones and test crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and observing the result on crash dummies. Whether one chooses to agree or not is immaterial, the fact is one can not defy the laws of physics. The fact remains the larger the vehicle, the more efficient the crumple zones, and the safety features are in absorbing the forces a collision and thus much less likely for properly belted passengers to be injured or killed by the "third collision" where ones organs strike ones skeleton, period. One is free to believe whatever one wishes and buy whatever one chooses. For me, I choose to never be caught dead in a small car, to save a relatively few hundred dollars on fuel annually. mike > Notice how Mike Hunter totally avoided conversation on this piece. He > cannot conversate outside of his swift comments and run routine. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car with >> his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! > I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I do > have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive > structural design engineer, designing automobile crumple zones and test > crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and observing the result on crash > dummies. From your comments, it looks like you volunteered at one point. That would explain your brain damage. ;-) > Whether one chooses to agree or not is immaterial, the fact is one can not > defy the laws of physics. The fact remains the larger the vehicle, the more > efficient the crumple zones, and the safety features are in absorbing the > forces a collision and thus much less likely for properly belted passengers > to be injured or killed by the "third collision" where ones > organs strike ones skeleton, period. The fact is that the smaller the vehicle, the fewer forces there are to absorb. The fact is that many small cars have fewer fatalities per million miles driven than big cars. > One is free to believe whatever one wishes and buy whatever one chooses. One can even believe a clueless twit. > For me, I choose to never be caught dead in a small car, to save a > relatively few hundred dollars on fuel annually. And for me, I choose to drive a same small car, so that I won't be caught dead in a rollover crash. > mike > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >>> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car with >>> his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! > > I am retired now and what I do have is fifteen years of > > my thirty years experience, as an automotive structural [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > From your comments, it looks like you volunteered at one point. That > would explain your brain damage. ;-) Mike is an idiot savant who knows everything about cars and absolutely nothing about anything else. Sound engineering, insane politics. Our friend Scott would disagree. He says the opposite LOL mike >> > I am retired now and what I do have is fifteen years of >> > my thirty years experience, as an automotive structural [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Mike is an idiot savant who knows everything about cars and absolutely > nothing about anything else. Sound engineering, insane politics. > > > I am retired now and what I do have is fifteen years of > > > my thirty years experience, as an automotive structural [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Mike is an idiot savant who knows everything about cars and absolutely > nothing about anything else. Sound engineering, insane politics. He probably has most of his money invested in GM, the company that just loves making big profit on big SUVs. >> > > I am retired now and what I do have is fifteen years of >> > > my thirty years experience, as an automotive structural [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >He probably has most of his money invested in GM, the company that just >loves making big profit on big SUVs. As a point of fact, it seems more vested in Ford. Either way, he's on the loosing end. Are you refer to my service in WWII? You, of course, are free to believe whatever you choose. LOL mike >> I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I >> do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >>>> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car >>>> with his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! > Are you refer to my service in WWII? No, I neither knew nor cared that you served in WWII. I had some relatives who served in WWII, including an uncle who got killed in France, as well as Korea and Viet Nam (including an uncle who served twenty years in active duty in the reserves). In addition, I probably had many distant relatives who served in Europe in the German Army (my family came from there, but we lost contact with them before the first World War). > You, of course, are free to believe > whatever you choose. LOL Yes, and you show us what happens when one does not think much about what he believes (or anything else for that matter). Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >>>>> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car >>>>> with his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! Why do I not find it odd that you did not mention you served your country? ;) mike >> Are you refer to my service in WWII? > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] >>>>>> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car >>>>>> with his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! > No, I neither knew nor cared that you served in WWII. I had some > relatives who served in WWII, including an uncle who got killed in > France, as well as Korea and Viet Nam (including an uncle who served > twenty years in active duty in the reserves). Wow, that's one tough uncle! It's bad enough to only get killed in France, but to then be killed in Korea and Vietnam as well....damn! Sorry, no disrespect intended, I just couldn't resist taking a poke at the awkward sentence. > Are you refer to my service in WWII? I don't know. Are you? You, of course, are free to believe > whatever you choose. LOL chooo chooo > mike > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >>>>> This way, Mike does not feel so guilty when he crushes a smaller car >>>>> with his Mormon sized family in his Chevy Tahoe! >> I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I >> do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > And for me, I choose to drive a same small car, so that I won't be caught > dead in a rollover crash. Its no secret that if you slam 800 pounds into a smaller car at 60 mph compared to an SUV that the damage is going to be more so, to the car. The problem though is many things arent valued into that.. SUV's are harder to move when a mistake is noticed and smaller cars are easier to move... You can sit in a warehouse all day and slam stuff into cars and come up with the obvious that the smaller car is going to get more abuse. Any moron could tell you that. However, how do SUV's play into it? A smaller car, hitting another smaller car is going to do less damage than a smaller car being hit by an SUV... That's obvious, but it will be more danger to the passengers than if the SUV his a large car. The fact is if a small car hits a small car their is a greater chance that the properly belted passenger will be injured or killed than the properly belted passenger of a larger vehicle. Maybe you learned something while attaining your metallurgy engineering degree than did I, but I doubt it. The laws of terminal dynamics in a collision do not change. Whether you believe so or not, is your purgative, but I'll not continue to try and enlighten one who has only an opinion on his side. ;) mike >>> I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I >>> do have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > A smaller car, hitting another smaller car is going to do less damage than > a smaller car being hit by an SUV... > Whether you believe so or not, is your purgative, Yow, that's a rude thing to say. > You can sit in a warehouse all day and slam stuff into cars and come up with > the obvious that the smaller car is going to get more abuse. Any moron could > tell you that. However, how do SUV's play into it? > > A smaller car, hitting another smaller car is going to do less damage than a > smaller car being hit by an SUV... And if two large SUVs, which have typically less crush zone than a mid sized car, hit one another the occupants in both large SUVs are usually seriously injured. The ultimate dumbness in this "drive very large for safety" argument is the person driving a large SUV to defend themselves from a semi. > I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I do > have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive > structural design engineer, designing automobile crumple zones and test > crashing hundreds of all types of vehicles and observing the result on crash > dummies. In your expert opinion, should a rational car buyer even bother to consider crash test results, or do those results matter too little to be significant in real life? > and observing the result on crash > > dummies. -who were driving large SUVs when they had a single vehicle roll over accident? >I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I do >have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >mike Perhaps you didn't learn physics as well as you could have or didn't design cars properly??? I think it is stupid to make a blanket statement like big cars are safer (for the occupants) than small cars. If they were identical except for size than I agree but often that is not the case. You are entitled to you own opinion. However I know better. ;) mike >>I do not now, or have I ever owned an SUV. I am retired now and what I do >>have is fifteen years of my thirty years experience, as an automotive [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > If they were identical except for size than I agree but often that is > not the case. >> Perhaps you didn't learn physics as well as you could have or didn't >> design cars properly??? I think it is stupid to make a blanket >> statement like big cars are safer (for the occupants) than small cars. >> If they were identical except for size than I agree but often that is >> not the case. > You are entitled to you own opinion. However I know better. ;) > > mike So, you're saying there is no shape or design that can make a small car as safe as a bigger one? Is that your final answer? >>> Perhaps you didn't learn physics as well as you could have or didn't >>> design cars properly??? I think it is stupid to make a blanket [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So, you're saying there is no shape or design that can make a small car as > safe as a bigger one? Is that your final answer? Why are you responding to this troll? Haven't you heard of killfile? > >> Perhaps you didn't learn physics as well as you could have or didn't > >> design cars properly??? I think it is stupid to make a blanket [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So, you're saying there is no shape or design that can make a small car as > safe as a bigger one? Is that your final answer? Mike cites death/injury statistics by vehicle weight. He assumes F=Ma is the only equation at work. However, Mike does have a point now that our highways are filled with huge SUVs. No amount of engineering is gonna save the occupants of a Civic when that Navigator crashes into it. The answer isn't to buy ever larger cars, though. We need to drastically reduce the number of huge SUVs on our highways substituting for passenger cars. Either was raise gas taxes to make fuel very expensive or we raise the CAFE requirements. Our elected officials have chosen the CAFE route. > > "Mike Hunter" <mikehu...@mailcity.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > fuel very expensive or we raise the CAFE requirements. Our elected > officials have chosen the CAFE route.- As somebody once said, you can turn on Formula One on TV and watch a skinny little French guy sititng in a bathtub full of gasoline ram into a wall at 200 mph and walk away. >You are entitled to you own opinion. However I know better. ;) > >mike Well I'm also a structural engineer and your assumption is flawed. I agree with you if the two different size vehicles have equal stiffness but if the larger one was more stiff and the smaller one less stiff, it may be that the larger one has the fatalities and the smaller one has survivors. >>You are entitled to you own opinion. However I know better. ;) >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it may be that the larger one has the fatalities and the smaller one > has survivors. I believe this is called "crush zones" where sections of a car are designed to crush easily in a crash to absorbed the impact. The old race cars were built so stiff and solid that they readily survived crashes relatively intact, but the driver was killed. This also depends on how small the vehicle is. I recall the original Honda that was about half the size of a standard compact car. There was no room for any crush zone and it would go flying when hit due to lack of weight. This is not good if slammed into a tree or other structure. Depending on the specifics of the crash, a large SUV will not be pushed as much as a smaller car and in some instances a larger vehicle will give the occupants a better chance of surviving. It all depends on so many factors that you can not make any blanket statements about survivability. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.