 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Hyundai Cars / February 2008Wow! How about that new Genesis!
Just saw a commercial during the Super Bowl for the Hyundai Genesis! Too bad i can't afford to buy one, so i have to settle for the Sonata, but that Genesis is a beauty!! Hyundai has come a long long long way!!! Yea, it's beautiful but you have to ask yourself what are these car companies thinking? Introduce a car with 375 horsepower on premium gas at $3.25 a gallon instead of a smaller diesel powered car that we sane people want? I say 'sane' because there are those of you out there with the 'I can afford it so I'm going to get it' mindset that has the rest of us sane people forced into larger vehicles just because 'we want some protection in case we get hit by one of the behemoths that surround us on the highways'. Legislate and tax the big SUV's off the highways and see how quickly small cars will proliferate. Oh how I hate yuppies! > Just saw a commercial during the Super Bowl for the Hyundai Genesis! > Too bad i can't afford to buy one, so i have to settle for the Sonata, > but that Genesis is a beauty!! Hyundai has come a long long long > way!!! >Yea, it's beautiful but you have to ask yourself what are these car >companies thinking? Introduce a car with 375 horsepower on premium gas at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Legislate and tax the big SUV's off the highways and see how quickly small >cars will proliferate. Oh how I hate yuppies! People with too much money and no regard for anyone else aren't yuppies, they're called idiots. The problem is the Energy Tax Act of '79 that's your problem, not "yuppies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act - Thee Chicago Wolf > >Yea, it's beautiful but you have to ask yourself what are these car >>companies thinking? Introduce a car with 375 horsepower on premium gas at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>Legislate and tax the big SUV's off the highways and see how quickly small >>cars will proliferate. Oh how I hate yuppies! What an idiot.. I hate "nanny types" who think they know what's best for everyone. I'll spend MY MONEY as I see fit.You want to drive a go-cart so the government should outlaw SUV's and trucks? That's just what we need...More nanny laws to regulate behavior..Was you born stupid or is it something you work on daily.I can just imagin trying to haul all my tools and materials around in a Yugo...You want to drive around with your knees on your chest,fine go for it but leave me the hell alone....I suppose next you will be whining that my house is to big as well and we need laws to regulate square footage per person....Socialist moonbat..... > People with too much money and no regard for anyone else aren't > yuppies, they're called idiots. The problem is the Energy Tax Act of > '79 that's your problem, not "yuppies." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act > > - Thee Chicago Wolf >What an idiot.. I hate "nanny types" who think they know what's best for >everyone. I'll spend MY MONEY as I see fit.You want to drive a go-cart so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >will be whining that my house is to big as well and we need laws to regulate >square footage per person....Socialist moonbat..... Why should the rest of America pay for your overconsumption of gas? So what if you have the money, you anti-americanism stinks. - Thee Chicago Wolf > >What an idiot.. I hate "nanny types" who think they know what's best for >>everyone. I'll spend MY MONEY as I see fit.You want to drive a go-cart so [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Thee Chicago Wolf I guess you can't read either...I use my truck for WORK...Look it up if you don't know what it means.....By the way ,what do you drive and how big is your house? Public Transportation and Public Housing maybe???? I'll get rid of my truck when Al Gore starts riding a bike and living in a Tee-Pee...LOL >> >What an idiot.. I hate "nanny types" who think they know what's best for >>>everyone. I'll spend MY MONEY as I see fit.You want to drive a go-cart so [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > of my truck when Al Gore starts riding a bike and living in a > Tee-Pee...LOL LOL.... :) >I guess you can't read either...I use my truck for WORK...Look it up if you >don't know what it means.....By the way ,what do you drive and how big is >your house? Public Transportation and Public Housing maybe???? I'll get rid >of my truck when Al Gore starts riding a bike and living in a Tee-Pee...LOL I own my own house and I drive an 02 Sonata. I understand people who drive trucks for work (i.e., construction, carrying payload, etc.). No one needs a crew-cab V8 with 8ft bed or dualie to get groceries or drive to the office. Same for Hummers, same for Navigators, same for blah blah blah. But, people can do whatever they want with their money. If you can afford it, good for you. Don't screw the rest of the American populous in the interim with you obsession with waste and consumerism. Exxon is happy that you've helped them break a global record for profit on gas this past year. Yay for you. May the Arab Oil Czars put their blessing on you and your family. Allah Ahkbar. The fact of the matter is, if you took the time to understand that the point of the Energy Tax Act, when created, was to exempt large trucks from having to have the same gas mileage as passenger cars do. Back THEN, people used light trucks for utilitarian purposes. That isn't true today. Car makers use this gaping loophole to make Hummers, Navigators, and other vehicles and call them "trucks" because of their weight or the way the square footage come out. They are as utilitarian as tits on a bull. Nowadays, people don't buy Hummers or Navigators or crew-cab trucks because they use them for "work", they buy them because they can and have all the money in the world to blow on gas or diesel. Gas that their cars consume at twice the rate that my car is legally bound to consume. I'm only saying the playing field should be level because while the loophole exists, the car companies aren't going to stop making vehicles that don't have to adhere to the law because they don't HAVE to. It's unfathomable that Bush even signed the damn legislation to make all fleet vehicles get 35MPG by 2020. Why should someone's "work" truck consume at twice the rate my car does and not pay any penalty just because of a loophole in a law? Nobody drives Fiats in this country and to say people drive "go-karts" shows us how much of a manly man you are by insulting the group. Let me guess your demographic: Construction / Contractor / Developer? Union & Overpaid but first to complain about market competition from the Chinese (or anyone else who'll do the exact same work for less)? Tell everyone to Buy American but shop at Wal-Mart / Target / "Big Box Inc."? Am I close? - Thee Chicago Wolf >> I guess you can't read either...I use my truck for WORK...Look it up if you >> don't know what it means.....By the way ,what do you drive and how big is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Yay for you. May the Arab Oil Czars put their blessing on you and your > family. Allah Ahkbar. And nobody needs a Sonata either. What a gas hog when you can ride a bicycle or drive a Prius! Matt >And nobody needs a Sonata either. What a gas hog when you can ride a >bicycle or drive a Prius! Dude, the 08 4-cyl Sonata gets better gas mileage and has more horsepower than my 02. 09 Sonata is supposed to be even better. I am hoping my 02 lasts until Hyundai comes out with their Hybrids (2011? 2012?). - Thee Chicago Wolf >> And nobody needs a Sonata either. What a gas hog when you can ride a >> bicycle or drive a Prius! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hoping my 02 lasts until Hyundai comes out with their Hybrids (2011? > 2012?). That doesn't matter. The point is that you are complaining about people who drive trucks that get worse mileage than your Sonata. I'm simply point out how hypocritical you are since you are driving a vehicle that gets much poorer mileage than alternatives such as the Prius. Kind of like Al Gore in his energy guzzling mansion flying around in jets and complaining about global warming. Matt >That doesn't matter. The point is that you are complaining about people >who drive trucks that get worse mileage than your Sonata. I'm simply [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Kind of like Al Gore in his energy guzzling mansion flying around in >jets and complaining about global warming. Matt, again, you're twisting the argument to suit your logical fallacy. I think we already figured you read Republican 101 material with these arguments (or Ann Coulter???) because it's easier for you to go on tangents rather than stick to the original point of the argument. Does the term non sequitur mean anything to you because it's what you just did. As usual, you've nothing that constitutes a position and choose cheap zings and pot shots as a statement of fact. So now I'm a hypocrite because I don't OWN a Prius? I don't WANT to own a Prius because, for my purposes, family size, and overall use, it's too small. The point, originally, is that SUV's and large trucks are not subject to what's in the Energy Tax Act of 78. That's all I ever stated, you added all this garbage, not me. I said to level the playing field, not complain about trucks. I can complain with the best of them but it's just opinion. Buy whatever friggin vehicle you want but bring the law up to date with today's vehicles. Are you clear on this point now? It's not possible to make it any more lucid. I'm not speaking in Chinese. - Thee Chicago Wolf >> That doesn't matter. The point is that you are complaining about people >> who drive trucks that get worse mileage than your Sonata. I'm simply [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Thee Chicago Wolf Posting it twice doesn't add any credibility. >That doesn't matter. The point is that you are complaining about people >who drive trucks that get worse mileage than your Sonata. I'm simply [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Kind of like Al Gore in his energy guzzling mansion flying around in >jets and complaining about global warming. Matt, again, you're twisting the argument to suit your logical fallacy. I think we already figured you read Republican 101 material with these arguments (or Ann Coulter???) because it's easier for you to go on tangents rather than stick to the original point of the argument. Does the term non sequitur mean anything to you because it's what you just did. As usual, you've nothing that constitutes a position and choose cheap zings and pot shots as a statement of fact. So now I'm a hypocrite because I don't OWN a Prius? I don't WANT to own a Prius because, for my purposes, family size, and overall use, it's too small. The point, originally, is that SUV's and large trucks are not subject to what's in the Energy Tax Act of 78. That's all I ever stated, you added all this garbage, not me. I said to level the playing field, not complain about trucks. I can complain with the best of them but it's just opinion. Buy whatever friggin vehicle you want but bring the law up to date with today's vehicles. Are you clear on this point now? It's not possible to make it any more lucid. I'm not speaking in Chinese. - Thee Chicago Wolf >> That doesn't matter. The point is that you are complaining about people >> who drive trucks that get worse mileage than your Sonata. I'm simply [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > this point now? It's not possible to make it any more lucid. I'm not > speaking in Chinese. What does this have to do with the ETA 78? "Why should the rest of America pay for your overconsumption of gas? So what if you have the money, you anti-americanism stinks." Or this? "No one needs a crew-cab V8 with 8ft bed or dualie to get groceries or drive to the office. Same for Hummers, same for Navigators, same for blah blah blah. But, people can do whatever they want with their money. If you can afford it, good for you. Don't screw the rest of the American populous in the interim with you obsession with waste and consumerism. Exxon is happy that you've helped them break a global record for profit on gas this past year. Yay for you. May the Arab Oil Czars put their blessing on you and your family. Allah Ahkbar." You simply think that your vehicle is the gold standard for what fuel mileage should be and anyone who drives a vehicle that gets less mileage than your current vehicle is wasteful. I'm simply pointing out your elitism and hypocrisy. I'm sorry it stings, but sometimes that is the way the truth is. Matt With all of his lights on!!!! Steve >>> And nobody needs a Sonata either. What a gas hog when you can ride a >>> bicycle or drive a Prius! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Matt Let me tell you about that Prius. I had the "luxury" of renting one this week in snowy Wyoming. It's definitely NOT a cold weather car. It's that you can power on the system and start driving right away...however, the little 4 banger takes a long time to warm up. Aside from that, not sure that America's willing to give up the rush of mashing a throttle in being pushed back into your seat. The Prius doesn't do that. I would even think of attempting to pass on a 2 lane highway. The acceleration stinks! Hybrids are cool, I'm all about the environment, but couldn't Toyota put a little more zip into this thing? I would utilize it in the lower half of the US and in a metropolitan city. Maybe the Camry Hyrbid has some power. The backup camera in reverse was cool though!!!  SignatureSteve 2008 Hyundai Sonata SE- His 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee- Hers 1997 Holiday Rambler Endeavor LE- Ours Home for sale in NW AZ near Las Vegas: http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/rfs/530237885.html > >And nobody needs a Sonata either. What a gas hog when you can ride a >>bicycle or drive a Prius! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Thee Chicago Wolf I wondered when you were going to jump in, Matt. :o) You're right that next step should be a Prius 'like' vehicle. I just can't understand why Hyundai is going the other way. They've made diesels for ever and certainly have the know-how. >>> I guess you can't read either...I use my truck for WORK...Look it up if >>> you [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Matt > >I guess you can't read either...I use my truck for WORK...Look it up if > >you [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Thee Chicago Wolf NO... This may sound alien to ya but I work for myself(construction) and have written paychecks to employees...Hell, I not only shop at Walmart , my wife works there. I drive a 95 Silverado for work,wife drives an 06 Elantra.If you could see my size you would understand why I refer to subcompacts as go-carts...LOL... I work DAMN hard to earn my money and will spend it as I see fit.Screw you nanny types and global warming snake oil salesmen........ >NO... This may sound alien to ya but I work for myself(construction) and >have written paychecks to employees...Hell, I not only shop at Walmart , my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >spend it as I see fit.Screw you nanny types and global warming snake oil >salesmen........ You don't even see the irony in it all. I never mentioned global warming. I am talking about rate of consumption. Big difference. Please continue to support the Chinese and Arab economies, they're depending on you. - Thee Chicago Wolf > >NO... This may sound alien to ya but I work for myself(construction) and >>have written paychecks to employees...Hell, I not only shop at Walmart , [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Thee Chicago Wolf Geesh,ATLEAST use the right countries I'm supporting...Like The United States,(we do still produce our own oil you know)Canada, Venezuela,Russia THEN Saudi Arabia. Don't forget Korea (Elantra)...LOL..MORON... > Geesh,ATLEAST use the right countries I'm supporting...Like The United >States,(we do still produce our own oil you know)Canada, Venezuela,Russia >THEN Saudi Arabia. Don't forget Korea (Elantra)...LOL..MORON... It's pointless to argue with you because you seem to believe what USA Today tells you is truth. Sorry, you are not correct. - Thee Chicago Wolf >It's pointless to argue with you because you seem to believe what USA >Today tells you is truth. Sorry, you are not correct. TCW, If you would get out more, you would notice that people get what they deserve. If they work hard and can afford nice cars, they deserve them. If they sit around and fiddle, they deserve less. That's the way it has always been, and the way it always will be. You don't think the hard working people should lower their living standards so lazy a.ses can have more, do you? Wastefulness will indeed hasten the depletion of natural resources. However, people aren't equipped to deal with that in times of plenty. When fuel goes up to $15 a gallon, even some of the wealthier people will be forced to cut back. The $15 fuel is closer than we think, so all the waste is not doing as much harm as you think. - Bob >If you would get out more, you would notice that people get what they >deserve. If they work hard and can afford nice cars, they deserve [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >will be forced to cut back. The $15 fuel is closer than we think, so >all the waste is not doing as much harm as you think. Bob, it's got nothing to do with not getting out enough. I'm a bit insulted by your presumptuous attitude that I'm poor or something or that I insist people lower themselves or their standards. It's beyond a gross misinterpretation of the original argument of this post / thread. I don't give a rat's posterior what anyone drives. As I've said from the beginning, a law that's been abused by car makers needs to be updated to address today's problems. Bush signed legislation, albeit too little too late, to address this by 2020. I'm just curious as to what loopholes exist in it, if any. There are people who work hard (you know, three jobs, kids, mortgage, bills, etc.) and STILL don't get ahead and it's got nothing to do with idleness or lethargy or not working harder. Everyone's situation is different. People who work smarter, not harder, get ahead in life. That, Bob, is how it IS. $15 a gallon to the uber wealthy isn't going to be a big deal but one could only HOPE there will be an alternative to $15 gas by the time that happens. You don't think Paris Hilton, in her 10 city, 17 highway Bently, care is gas if $50 a gallon, do you? I don't know that I agree with you that we're almost there. China and India's economies haven't quite peaked yet. Gas prices THAT high, I would imagine, would crash an economy. When a resources appears to be plentiful, it's not an apparent problem. You HAVE to factor in double or triple digit growth in other countries. They're going to want a bigger and bigger part of that world oil every year as their economy booms. People will only notice it when it's either almost gone or can only be had by the highest bidder. The bigger picture is that it's not just about fixing a broken law or making 35MPG the standard for a fleet by 2020, it's also the repercussions of sending industry to countries that are now booming exponentially as a byproduct. Exactly how much harder CAN a person work if another country is reaping all the benefits? - Thee Chicago Wolf >only be had by the highest bidder. The bigger picture is that it's not >just about fixing a broken law or making 35MPG the standard for a >fleet by 2020, it's also the repercussions of sending industry to We don't need any artificial laws. The only real law that should govern MPG in cars and fuel prices is supply and demand. Let the markets stay free. That way, the prices will always be fair, and the vehicles will have bearable fuel economy. You talk as though the government is responsible for the laws of physics. Internal combustion engines have been all but tweaked to the limit. In order to improve mileage significantly, the automobile will have to undergo serious change. Cars will have to get smaller and a lot lighter to significantly improve mileage. Some people won't like the cars that result, so they will be accepted very grudgingly. Car makers aren't in business to make the government happy. They are in business to make their customers happy. And that's the way it should be. - Bob "Bob Adkins" <bob.adkins@gmail.com> wrote in message > We don't need any artificial laws. The only real law that should > govern MPG in cars and fuel prices is supply and demand. Let the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bob Normally I'd agree and strongly support your position. But I'm not so sure it works in this case. Let's play "what if". What if the government did not mandated unleaded fuel? What if the government did not mandate some fuel savings? Would technology have won or would we be changing plugs at 10,000 miles because they are lead fouled? Would cars till be 5000 pounds when a much lighter one performs better? Agree that the internal combustion engine is pretty close to its limits so other types must be researched. Twenty years ago people said the internal combustion engine was at its limit, but the automakers manage to add some power every couple of years. Just look at the 3800 GM for instance. Hyundai 3.3 is getting a boost. Evidently it is still possible to squeeze a bit more. Just my opinion, but the hybrid is not the way of the future. I'm also not so sure that the automakers actually want some of the changes that the government forces them to charge more for and increase profits. Public posturing aside, they do add those mandated "improvements" into the cost of the car. "We don't want to increase prices but the government makes us do it." >Normally I'd agree and strongly support your position. But I'm not so sure >it works in this case. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >cost of the car. "We don't want to increase prices but the government makes >us do it." Ed, Yes, this is true. Innovations and technological tweaking continues to squeeze more out the IC engine. Variable intake seems to be the new big thing for 2008. Reinforced by this fact, the 2007/2008 4-cyl Sonata not only has MORE horsepower than my 2002 6-cyl, it get's better mileage! When my 2002 dies or I sell it off or trade in, I will be looking forward to what 4-cyl model is going to be out. - Thee Chicago Wolf >Let's play "what if". What if the government did not mandated unleaded >fuel? What if the government did not mandate some fuel savings? Would >technology have won or would we be changing plugs at 10,000 miles because >they are lead fouled? Would cars till be 5000 pounds when a much lighter >one performs better? Fair enough, but let's not get public health issues mixed up with economic issues. >Agree that the internal combustion engine is pretty close to its limits so >other types must be researched. Twenty years ago people said the internal >combustion engine was at its limit, but the automakers manage to add some >power every couple of years. Just look at the 3800 GM for instance. >Hyundai 3.3 is getting a boost. Evidently it is still possible to squeeze a >bit more. Physics dictates how much work a gallon of gasoline can perform. With the old technology, we weren't too close to that. Newer engines are actually getting pretty close. To get any *significant* MPG boosts, we'll have to drop not hundreds, but thousands of pounds from our current family sedans. If my 3.3L Sonata weighed 2400 instead of 3400 pounds, it could easily get 35 mpg (if geared accordingly). A little aerodynamics, and sacrifice a little less interior room, and I bet she gets 45mpg. It's not as much the engine as the car. >Just my opinion, but the hybrid is not the way of the future. Agree! Plug-in hybrids are the way to go... until something better comes along. >I'm also not so sure that the automakers actually want some of the changes >that the government forces them to charge more for and increase profits. >Public posturing aside, they do add those mandated "improvements" into the >cost of the car. "We don't want to increase prices but the government makes >us do it." I hear you. They love to stick new charges on the window sticker. :) - Bob >>only be had by the highest bidder. The bigger picture is that it's not >>just about fixing a broken law or making 35MPG the standard for a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Bob Bob, It's good that you see the clear reason why the legislation was signed. I think you're a bit one-sided in your global outlook though because you clearly illustrate only the wealthy will be able to afford to buy gas and it will push the rest of the 99% out. The underlying argument seems to be that the market drive everything but people in the US with your mindset think America is the only country that consumes oil for the production of gas for cars. You are NOT factoring in the exponential growth occurring in other developing countries. Blah Blah Blah, here come the big bad government always telling us what to do and when to do it. The legislation ultimately does not to tell US what to do, it just sets challenges to what the auto industry already knows it has to do but will ONLY do if dragged kicking and screaming. According to your philosophy, if left to their own devices, the automakers would ditch all large cars and make small cars. Auto makers have NO incentive to make small cars because they make gobs of money from their LARGE vehicles. They will continue to focus on the BIG money maker, not the chump change compact cars. But lately, all I see are recalls and auto-makers going in the toilet because people aren't buying the large cars. The large car bubble has burst from what I can tell. At least until gas comes back down to what it was pre_Iraq War. Yes, improving vehicles efficiency is a challenge. Every year, science proves you CAN do more. You CAN push the limit a bit further. You CAN improve upon what's already current. I am constantly reading about grad and Ph. D. students figuring out some tweak to the engine to improve it a bit more. Some improved engine component is made to squeeze out a little bit more. I am very aware of the limit of the carbon atom. I am just waiting for the whole outside of all cars to be made out of plastic like bumpers back 10 years ago. The styrofoam beneath was a nice touch too. That's always made me feel safer. The car makers will cut any and all corners to meet that magic MPG ratio based on vehicle size and weight. I noticed at the Chicago auto show the new "smaller" Hummer sure looks like it's made out of a hell of a lot of plastic. Gee, wonder why? This is the little game they have to play to sloooooowly introduce the idea that plastic is safe for more than just bumpers, wheel well, and quarter panels. All the plastic in the world cannot save them though, try as they might. But it is to their benefit you see, plastic IS, after all, a petroleum product. And the circle goes round and round and round.... - Thee Chicago Wolf >It's good that you see the clear reason why the legislation was >signed. I think you're a bit one-sided in your global outlook though [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >consumes oil for the production of gas for cars. You are NOT factoring >in the exponential growth occurring in other developing countries. TCW, I love your passion. Never lose it! But listen here, nobody wants to push anyone out. Everyone in the USA has the same opportunity to drive a big fat Hummer as me. If one doesn't like to drive an Urkel Mobile, let them get a better job and drive exactly what they want. The way you present things is the tail wagging the dog. The truth is, most of that 99% of people that don't drive luxury sedans do so of their own free will, not because anyone is forcing them. Don't insult people by saying they "can't" drive a luxury car. It's not a God given right to drive a big car anyway. > According to your philosophy, if left to their own devices, >the automakers would ditch all large cars and make small cars. Auto [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I can tell. At least until gas comes back down to what it was pre_Iraq >War. Well wait a minute now. Don't you remember the early 70's when the car makers had to scramble to downsize their bloated cars? That was because of customer demand. Gas got too expensive, and the manufacturers had to change. We agree, we just have different time tables. Short term (TCW Time), you are right. Car makers will do nothing. That's because gas is only $3 a gallon. So near term, you'll see a few paltry attempts at improving fuel economy. We're prosperous right now, and a tank of gas still costs less than a family meal at Pizza Hut. Long term, the 15mpg cars and trucks will be abandoned along the roadsides, because it will cost $500 to fill the tank. Not real soon, but SOONER THAN YOU THINK. >Yes, improving vehicles efficiency is a challenge. Every year, science >proves you CAN do more. You CAN push the limit a bit further. You CAN [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >squeeze out a little bit more. I am very aware of the limit of the >carbon atom. Tweak, tweak, tweak, phooey! That'll get you a mile or 2 further on a gallon. That's near-term stuff, and will be a laugh in 10 years and beyond. By then, we will need some earthshaking, radical changes in our entire vehicles, from the ground up. We will have to start sacrificing room, comfort, and safety for fuel economy. We're talking about 1500 pound cars instead of 3000 pound cars. We're talking about 1000cc engines instead of 3000cc, or pure electric. >I am just waiting for the whole outside of all cars to be made out of >plastic like bumpers back 10 years ago. The styrofoam beneath was a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >you see, plastic IS, after all, a petroleum product. And the circle >goes round and round and round.... Haha... your description hints of Nerf cars. The Government and insurance companies would love them. :) I hope you're young enough to see the technological advances in the cars of 2025. If we leave the manufacturers alone, I think we will rise to the challenge. But it will never be quite enough. It's a moving target, and there's always the next challenge. It's called living. - Bob >I love your passion. Never lose it! I'm sure we're irritating the piss out of the general group who are discussing Hyundais but whether we agree or not, I like a good debate and discussion. It's all good. >But listen here, nobody wants to push anyone out. Everyone in the USA >has the same opportunity to drive a big fat Hummer as me. If one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >people by saying they "can't" drive a luxury car. It's not a God given >right to drive a big car anyway. I'm not sure where you're getting this "luxury" car thing from as I never injected it into the conversation. I guess our definitions of luxury cars differ? I can tell from the way you choose to word things in terms of cars that it's partially an aesthetic choice as opposed to practical or pragmatic. I feel most people make choices based on their budget and their overall intended purpose. The average adult is, what, 8K in financial debt (credit or otherwise)? Most people have sense enough to stick within their economic means. Now, the 99% I am talking about is the "99%" that was referred to in the discussion about "the wealthiest 1% of American's have more wealth than the combined 99% of all Americans." THOSE 99%. Not the 99%, as in "everybody else." I didn't make that clear. I was still following on the tail end of the earlier discussions of those wealthy enough to afford $15 gas prices from a few posts ago that would put gas out of the reach of the rest of the "99%." That should be more on target with what I really mean. Clear as mud? >> According to your philosophy, if left to their own devices, >>the automakers would ditch all large cars and make small cars. Auto [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >roadsides, because it will cost $500 to fill the tank. Not real soon, >but SOONER THAN YOU THINK. Ok, I got you on this one. A few months back there was heated debate on this exact same topic on this exact same car. Someone attempted, and failed, to tell me gas today had never been as high, even adjusted for inflation. I am old enough to remember the Arab Oil Embargo of the early 70s (1973 to be exact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis) and that gas, adjusted for inflation, topped our highest per-barrel costs in recent months. The Energy Tax Act came about as a direct result of that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act). The car makers scrambling to make smaller cars was, in my interpretation, a result of the Arab Oil Embargo and the economic climate of the time. While it did take nearly 6 years for the Energy Tax Act to be signed into law (1978) after gas prices went nuts in the late 70s and early 80s, it at least set the precedent that car makers WERE willing to work with the government to find a middle-ground solution for both the oil side and the economic side of the problem. Today, I feel you have to hold a gun to their head. Sanatayana said it best: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I kind of see the legislation that Bush signed as a bit of prodding being done against the car makers. Back in the 70s, I don't feel they needed to be prodded. They saw what needed to be done and stepped up to the challenge. >>Yes, improving vehicles efficiency is a challenge. Every year, science >>proves you CAN do more. You CAN push the limit a bit further. You CAN [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >about 1500 pound cars instead of 3000 pound cars. We're talking about >1000cc engines instead of 3000cc, or pure electric. Well, it's funny you mention sacrifice. This is exactly what someone was talking about on NPR as I carpooled with my wife this morning. Just 1 generation ago, people knew what it meant to sacrifice a little both for themselves and their country. I don't see that so much now. At least not in the generation growing up. In terms of sacrifice, can you imagine if people had to ration rubber and metal like they did during the early World Wars? Our senior citizens who had to deal with this type of situation would be laughing at how much a bunch of Sally's people have become. Using science to created stronger alloys and make better use of metals in car could yield some weight reductions. Ultimately it all does fall on the shoulder of the engine and it's power. We're also seeing a lot of new technology being put into cars now that wasn't there 10 years ago: Nav systems, full cabin air bags, multi speaker arrays, DVD players and screens, etc. That stuff adds to the aggregate weight. It's starting to become standard on some models. 5 years from now, who knows. Hey, I'll take the 2 more miles to the gallon from tweaking if the technology tweak stays in the design. For someone who might be buying their first new car and expect it to last them a good 5-10 years with good maintenance, the 2 mile per gallon savings could sure add up over the long term and afford them a better vehicle down the road. >>I am just waiting for the whole outside of all cars to be made out of >>plastic like bumpers back 10 years ago. The styrofoam beneath was a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >moving target, and there's always the next challenge. It's called >living. Nerf car? Better patent the name before Toyota does! You might retire on the royalties or something. Yes, it will be interesting to see what will be on the roads in 2025. The trend to use plastics on bumpers is probably to increase aero dynamism I would surmise. I can't imagine it being easy to make a metal cast of the crazy bumper designs we see today. It MUST be easier to cast it in plastic. I hope the automakers do rise to the challenge. Hopefully recruit some young minds coming out of school to put their minds to work on the problem. Cheers. - Thee Chicago Wolf >> NO... This may sound alien to ya but I work for myself(construction) and >> have written paychecks to employees...Hell, I not only shop at Walmart , my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Please continue to support the Chinese and Arab economies, they're > depending on you. And you with that gas guzzling Sonata that doesn't even get 30 MPG. >>> NO... This may sound alien to ya but I work for myself(construction) and >>> have written paychecks to employees...Hell, I not only shop at Walmart , my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >And you with that gas guzzling Sonata that doesn't even get 30 MPG. Zing. Thanks for the input Matt. - Thee Chicago Wolf >>>> NO... This may sound alien to ya but I work for myself(construction) and >>>> have written paychecks to employees...Hell, I not only shop at Walmart , my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Zing. Thanks for the input Matt. Thanks for the entertainment. The real point is that the Sonato, nor any other car sold in the US, is capable of giving fuel mileage even close to what they should be giving. If we got off our butts and put diesels in all our cars, large and small, we would probably be oil independent given the 35% improvement in fuel economy that diesels are capable of giving. Three Chicago Wolf is right on and benick is hopelessly entrenched in his own little world to ever see out into the real world and recognize where his offspring will be in 20 years. His group's legacy to them is what is dooming all our children. >>> NO... This may sound alien to ya but I work for myself(construction) >>> and have written paychecks to employees...Hell, I not only shop at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And you with that gas guzzling Sonata that doesn't even get 30 MPG. > The fact of the matter is, if you took the time to understand that the > point of the Energy Tax Act, when created, was to exempt large trucks [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because they can and have all the money in the world to blow on gas or > diesel. Do you ever actually pay attention to who really drives those big diesel duelies? Check it out - most are used for real hauling. Navigators - I agree with you on that point, as well as those who buy Hummers. But - they pay the price not you or I, so what either of us think about it does not matter. You may well be a bigger user of gas than either of those, depending on the number of miles you put on in your Sonata each year. > Why should someone's "work" truck consume at twice the rate my car > does and not pay any penalty just because of a loophole in a law? And why should they pay a penalty beyond the price they already pay for the vehicle and fuel? You're starting to sound like you're all about penalizing anyone who does not fit into your definition of what is acceptable. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > "Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message >> Why should someone's "work" truck consume at twice the rate my car >> does and not pay any penalty just because of a loophole in a law? > > And why should they pay a penalty beyond the price they already pay for the > vehicle and fuel? You're starting to sound like you're all about penalizing > anyone who does not fit into your definition of what is acceptable. That is exactly what he is about. >> "Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That is exactly what he is about. Matt, we all know you have no valid opinion. You just zing from the outskirts and have no position. Troll. - Thee Chicago Wolf >>> "Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message >>>> Why should someone's "work" truck consume at twice the rate my car [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Matt, we all know you have no valid opinion. You just zing from the > outskirts and have no position. Troll. Ha, ha, ha... More entertainment, but not as good as before. Try to up your game a little. >>> "Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message >>>> Why should someone's "work" truck consume at twice the rate my car [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Matt, we all know you have no valid opinion. You just zing from the > outskirts and have no position. Troll. Funny, it seems that the opinions of the group are running unanimously against you. So who has the more valid opinion? The opinions of the group??? The group consists of three ' I can afford it, so I'll buy it' frequent visitors who I knew when I originally posted would come jumping into the mire. I was really sickened last night when I saw an ad for a hybrid Navigator (or other behemoth). Now THAT is really STUPID............. and shows what car companies think of the consumer mentality. Just because Matt and Mike and benick (???) think big is better, I guess it is a foregone conclusion that it must be true. Take a trip to Europe and see how even BIG people like benick get around without huge cars. >>>> "Thee Chicago Wolf" <.@.> wrote in message >>>>> Why should someone's "work" truck consume at twice the rate my car [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Funny, it seems that the opinions of the group are running unanimously > against you. So who has the more valid opinion? > The opinions of the group??? The group consists of three ' I can afford it, > so I'll buy it' frequent visitors who I knew when I originally posted would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I guess it is a foregone conclusion that it must be true. Take a trip to > Europe and see how even BIG people like benick get around without huge cars. You are a liar as I have never said that bigger is better. Find one place where I ever wrote that. Matt Matt, Matt, Matt. Calling someone a liar is not a very nice thing to do but I would expect nothing less of you since you seem to flourish at giving snide one liners in your posts. For one, you said "You simply think that your vehicle is the gold standard for what fuel mileage should be and anyone who drives a vehicle that gets less mileage than your current vehicle is wasteful." While not directly stating bigger is better, your snippet suggests such with the 'less mileage'. AND "That doesn't matter. The point is that you are complaining about people who drive trucks that get worse mileage than your Sonata. " is another example that shows you support the proliferation of trucks on the road. AND FINALLY "And just what size vehicles do you propose to outlaw? Lemme guess, anything larger than what YOU drive, right?" All of these remarks point to the fact that you do, indeed, support the larger is better theory. So stick that up your gas tank, Matt. Oh, and I drive a Sonata, a VW Jetta, and a BIG Kia Sedona (less than 800 miles a year). The Sonata will be gone as soon as the first car company introduces a small, reasonably priced fuel efficient diesel car that I like. I know you'll snap up the gas guzzling Sedona as soon as I trade it in. It's extra heavy and give a lot of protection on the road AND can haul a month's worth of groceries. I'll even throw in the enclosed trailer that I pull with it so you can bring your big appliances home with you. >> The opinions of the group??? The group consists of three ' I can afford >> it, so I'll buy it' frequent visitors who I knew when I originally posted [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Matt > Matt, Matt, Matt. > Calling someone a liar is not a very nice thing to do but I would expect > nothing less of you since you seem to flourish at giving snide one liners in > your posts. It was an accurate statement, neither nice nor not nice. > For one, you said "You simply think that your vehicle is the gold standard > for what fuel > mileage should be and anyone who drives a vehicle that gets less mileage > than your current vehicle is wasteful." > While not directly stating bigger is better, your snippet suggests > such with the 'less mileage'. It suggests nothing about what I think. It suggests what I thought the other poster was thinking. Big difference. > AND "That doesn't matter. The point is that you are complaining about > people > who drive trucks that get worse mileage than your Sonata. " is another > example that shows you support the proliferation of trucks on the road. No, it suggests that I don't like hypocrites. > AND FINALLY "And just what size vehicles do you propose to outlaw? Lemme > guess, > anything larger than what YOU drive, right?" > > All of these remarks point to the fact that you do, indeed, support the > larger is better theory. So stick that up your gas tank, Matt. They neither state nor even suggest any such thing. Time to learn how to read and, more importantly, comprehend what you read. > Oh, and I drive a Sonata, a VW Jetta, and a BIG Kia Sedona (less than 800 > miles a year). The Sonata will be gone as soon as the first car company [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > month's worth of groceries. I'll even throw in the enclosed trailer that I > pull with it so you can bring your big appliances home with you. Nah, I don't want a Kia. Matt Well, I can still comprehend, my friend and say what you will, I can comprehend that you are a closed minded liar, not me. One thing I really like about being retired is that I can sit here and bait you guys into arguing about anything. :o) It just points out that everyone has points of view that they are willing to defend at any cost. Never mind what is right or wrong. If you believe in it, your mind is closed to any other options or opinions. This is a several thousand year old trait that is repeated over and over in history. Only history will record which of us is correct, but, unfortunately, I think that there won't be anyone around to write it. >> Matt, Matt, Matt. >> Calling someone a liar is not a very nice thing to do but I would expect [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Matt > Well, I can still comprehend, my friend and say what you will, I can > comprehend that you are a closed minded liar, not me. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is correct, but, unfortunately, I think that there won't be anyone around to > write it. Ha, ha, ha... You have yet to figure out who is the fish and who is the fisherman. MW> Funny, it seems that the opinions of the group are running unanimously MW> against you. So who has the more valid opinion? Maybe some of us agree with him but don' t have the time to spend online pushing this particular piece of string..... ;-) Best Regards Wayne Moses <wayne.moses@comcast.net> Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:27:26 -0600 > Why should someone's "work" truck consume at twice the rate my car > does and not pay any penalty just because of a loophole in a law? They pay twice as much to go the same distance > Nobody drives Fiats in this country and to say people drive "go-karts" > shows us how much of a manly man you are by insulting the group. Didn't insult me... Your socialism does. I drive a 06 Sonata 6 cyl. Does that mean I'm screwing the rest of you because I did not get the 4 cyl? I own a 07 F150 8' bed...6 cyl. Does that mean I'm some kind of evil person for owning a long bed truck...or maybe I'm a saint because it's only a 6 cyl. I don't have a 4 door 8 cyl because I can't afford one. If I could and I wanted one the gov. has no business telling me what to drive. It's called free market economics, build a vehicle that people like more than their SUVs and they will buy them. I have no problem with SUV getting NO special treatment but I do have a problem with them being penalized because some liberal tree hugger thinks they're evil. Wow, now we have Rob chiming in with another "I can afford it, so I'll buy it, you tree hugger' comment!!!.................... I'm not a tree hugger. I'm just realistic about the future for my children if you people keep buying large cars and trucks that force the rest of us to retaliate out of safety concerns to get equally big cars to survive impacts with your behemoths. I also am tired of no one putting pressure on the government to actually do something substantial to improve mileage and encourage the manufacture of truly small cars while at the same time, aggressively eliminating the incentives to buy huge cars. I've actually written to all my Congressmen outlining the problem and offering several solutions, both short term and long term. Have any of you 'squanders'? Would you continue to buy or keep your huge truck or car if you had to pay a yearly penalty of 2% of your adjusted gross income? I don't think even Al Gore would like that. It would make you finally see the light that you don't NEED that huge vehicle and there are alternatives. That would free up the highways and allow we sane folk to buy the small cars we want to buy and create a demand that the auto industry would gladly fill. >> Why should someone's "work" truck consume at twice the rate my car >> does and not pay any penalty just because of a loophole in a law? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > special treatment but I do have a problem with them being penalized > because some liberal tree hugger thinks they're evil. I've been to Europe many times and NEVER have I seen a pickup truck of the size of the US version. Those workers get the job done and haul their tools without a big truck. In fact, it is extremely rare to even see a small pickup truck. They mainly use little panel trucks that work very well, evidently. Point is that you don't NEED that F350 to haul a tool box................ >> >What an idiot.. I hate "nanny types" who think they know what's best for >>>everyone. I'll spend MY MONEY as I see fit.You want to drive a go-cart so [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > of my truck when Al Gore starts riding a bike and living in a > Tee-Pee...LOL > I've been to Europe many times and NEVER have I seen a pickup truck of the > size of the US version. Those workers get the job done and haul their tools > without a big truck. In fact, it is extremely rare to even see a small > pickup truck. They mainly use little panel trucks that work very well, > evidently. Point is that you don't NEED that F350 to haul a tool > box................ I've been to Europe many times also and lived there for more than 4 months a couple of decades ago. Everything in Europe is smaller, refrigerators were not much larger than my college dorm fridge and most other appliances were similarly smaller. You don't need a large truck to carry small stuff, I agree. However, many in the UK had to visit the grocery store multiple times a week to get what they needed as they could fit only so much in their refrigerators and small kitchens. This isn't a problem when the store is 1 km distant, but I live 5 miles from the nearest convenience store and 15 from the nearest real supermarket. So, getting a jug of milk requires a 10 mile drive. I could buy an 8 cu ft fridge and drive to the store every other day, but I think it more efficient to load my fridge once a week and save the driving. However, this does require larger trucks to deliver such appliances, but I believe the trade-off is in my favor. Energy consumption is a complex system and often the "obviously" smart choice is actually the wrong choice when the total system is evaluated. Matt Let me understand this, Matt. You couldn't get a week's worth of groceries in a small car?????? Bad comparison. Sorry. They don't have small cars in Europe because they have small refrigerators and don't need to haul a lot of groceries. You certainly are smart enough to not buy a large truck just to pick up a large appliance. If you are any good at negotiating, you can get it delivered as part of the purchase. ............... > I've been to Europe many times also and lived there for more than 4 months > a couple of decades ago. Everything in Europe is smaller, refrigerators [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Matt > Let me understand this, Matt. You couldn't get a week's worth of groceries > in a small car?????? Bad comparison. Sorry. They don't have small cars in > Europe because they have small refrigerators and don't need to haul a lot of > groceries. You certainly are smart enough to not buy a large truck just to > pick up a large appliance. If you are any good at negotiating, you can get > it delivered as part of the purchase. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. SOMEBODY needs a large truck to deliver a 22 cu ft refrigerator, a freezer, a washer and dryer, etc. Just because somebody else has to buy the truck doesn't change the fallacy of your argument against large trucks. I also plow my own driveway (it is 1700' feet long), haul my own firewood, etc. This doesn't work well with a small car... Matt Yes, but that truck is a diesel used exclusively to deliver product to multiple locations making it efficient to operate. It isn't used to haul the wife to the mall or the kids to a soccer game or all the other wasteful trips that the truck takes during its lifetime. Plowing a driveway is a legitimate use but with a year's worth of fuel difference between the 17 mpg truck and a 32 mpg car, you could hire someone to plow it. Also, I use a 4 wheeler trailer to haul my firewood so I only have to pull the trailer a few times a year and not haul the weight of the truck the rest of the year. That's something else you see in Europe. They have a lot of trailer hitches for just such occasions. My reading comprehension is quite good but it just makes me sick to read your drivel....... >> Let me understand this, Matt. You couldn't get a week's worth of >> groceries in a small car?????? Bad comparison. Sorry. They don't have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Matt > Yes, but that truck is a diesel used exclusively to deliver product to > multiple locations making it efficient to operate. It isn't used to haul [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > My reading comprehension is quite good but it just makes me sick to read > your drivel....... Should the Gov. regulate food? Some people eat A LOT!! How about electricity? medicine? Perhaps the size of your home or the amount of land you own. Who needs a 1700' driveway, that is a tremendous waste of a natural resource. (land) We all know Bill Gates has no right to consume all of that money. I guess you know better than us common idiot folk. Good thing we have your kind looking out for us. Produce a small vehicle that people like and it'll sell. >>> Let me understand this, Matt. You couldn't get a week's worth of >>> groceries in a small car?????? Bad comparison. Sorry. They don't have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Matt > Yes, but that truck is a diesel used exclusively to deliver product to > multiple locations making it efficient to operate. It isn't used to haul [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > truck the rest of the year. That's something else you see in Europe. They > have a lot of trailer hitches for just such occasions. And it is better that someone else plow my driveway with their 17 MPG truck rather than me plow it with my 18 MPG truck? Sorry, but that logic isn't logical. > My reading comprehension is quite good but it just makes me sick to read > your drivel....... If you think what I wrote is drivel, then that confirms your lack of reading comprehension. You are just too easy and just can't help yourself from responding to everything I write. I reply to you, Matt, because I've read many of your comments over time and you seem to be knowledgeable; therefore, I still have some hope that you can 'see the light'. :o) It's always healthy to debate both sides of a dilemna. >> Yes, but that truck is a diesel used exclusively to deliver product to >> multiple locations making it efficient to operate. It isn't used to haul [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You are just too easy and just can't help yourself from responding to > everything I write. > I reply to you, Matt, because I've read many of your comments over time and > you seem to be knowledgeable; therefore, I still have some hope that you can > 'see the light'. :o) It's always healthy to debate both sides of a > dilemna. If only there were a light to see? :-) Yes, I enjoy a good debate and believe that debates can be both educational and entertaining. Matt >> I reply to you, Matt, because I've read many of your comments over >> time and you seem to be knowledgeable; therefore, I still have some [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Matt This debate definitely entertained the heck outta me :-) For the record, I believe the earth is warming. I don't believe anyone has really figured out why yet. I also believe it is a cyclical event that there ain't a thing we can do about. I am also a registered Republican but I do vote for an occasional "D". I can't find anyone I can really align with this time around though :-( Eric >>> I reply to you, Matt, because I've read many of your comments over >>> time and you seem to be knowledgeable; therefore, I still have some [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I do vote for an occasional "D". I can't find anyone I can really align > with this time around though :-( Yes, I'm in much the same boat. I'm not a fan of any of the front runners or any of the "independents in waiting" such as Bloomberg. I may write in someone's name just so I can say I voted and did my civic duty, but did so without compromising my beliefs. Matt >> This debate definitely entertained the heck outta me :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Matt At this point in time I'd have to agree with a write in being the best choice for me as well. Bloomberg scares the heck out of me. His idea of gun control is to allow only the criminals and police to have guns. His fiscal policies seem pretty sound though, and I know many around here in NJ would vote for him if he throws his hat in to the ring. Doesn't Reagan have any relatives that want to run??? :-) Eric 'Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.' - Ronald Reagan 'The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan 'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.' - Ronald Reagan 'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.' - Ronald Reagan 'I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.' - Ronald Reagan 'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.' - Ronald Reagan 'Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.' - Ronald Reagan 'The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.' - Ronald Reagan 'It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.' - Ronald Reagan 'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.' - Ronald Reagan 'Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.' - Ronald Reagan 'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.' - Ronald Reagan 'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.' - Ronald Reagan >For the record, I believe the earth is warming. I don't believe anyone has >really figured out why yet. I also believe it is a cyclical event that >there ain't a thing we can do about. I am also a registered Republican but >I do vote for an occasional "D". I can't find anyone I can really align >with this time around though :-( I don't want to add confusion on top of doubt, but... http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175 I already hate global cooling. :( - Bob >>For the record, I believe the earth is warming. I don't believe >>anyone has really figured out why yet. I also believe it is a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bob Jeez, Bob. You'll believe just about anyone, won't you?? :-) To be honest, it has more credibility to me than Al Gore does. Does this mean we'll have to get the government to regulate that all cars and trucks ahouls get LESS than 10 MPG and generate more CO2? Oh wait, I see it says the sun overpowers anything man could ever do to the environment, CO2 wise that is. Eric >>For the record, I believe the earth is warming. I don't believe anyone >>has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Bob This is the best (IMHO) objective and non-partisan take on the subject I've found: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html It's worth everyone's time to read it. I especially like this snippet: Global warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called "Industrial Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse Effect." Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age! EG> This debate definitely entertained the heck outta me :-) Whatever this is it is -not- a debate. More like a farce. ;-) Best Regards Wayne Moses <wayne.moses@comcast.net> Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:38:13 -0600 > Let me understand this, Matt. You couldn't get a week's worth of > groceries in a small car?????? Bad comparison. Sorry. They don't have > small cars in Europe because they have small refrigerators and don't > need to haul a lot of groceries. You certainly are smart enough to not > buy a large truck just to pick up a large appliance. If you are any good > at negotiating, you can get it delivered as part of the purchase. Oh God I am going to -die- laughing at you fellas! Best Regards Wayne Moses <wayne.moses@comcast.net> Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:34:43 -0600 Benick keeps referring to Al Gore. Benick, have you ever watched Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' and comprehended what he was outlining for you? Or did you just take someone's word that it was a bunch of tree-hugging bum dope? >> >What an idiot.. I hate "nanny types" who think they know what's best for >>>everyone. I'll spend MY MONEY as I see fit.You want to drive a go-cart so [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > of my truck when Al Gore starts riding a bike and living in a > Tee-Pee...LOL > Benick keeps referring to Al Gore. Benick, have you ever watched Al > Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' and comprehended what he was outlining for > you? Ooops... You just lost any credibility you had. Or did > you just take someone's word that it was a bunch of tree-hugging bum dope? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> of my truck when Al Gore starts riding a bike and living in a >> Tee-Pee...LOL And why did I lose credibility, Rob. Just because you didn't watch it either? Sometimes the facts are hard to accept, I know. > Ooops... You just lost any credibility you had. > And why did I lose credibility, Rob. Just because you didn't watch it > either? Sometimes the facts are hard to accept, I know. Lost me too. No, I did not and will not see Gore's film. Considering his lifestyle and how he wants the rest of us to live, he is just a blowhard politician hypocrite. He has zero respect and credibility with me. When he moves into a 2 bedroom ranch home, give me a call and we'll talk. Hi Edwin, See, people here accused me of wanting them to 'lower' themselves to my ideals and lifestyle and blasted me royally for it. Now you say that you don't want anything to do with Gore until he lowers himself to our lifestyle............. I said 'our lifestyle' because I suspect I am in the same lifestyle as you and everyone else here. I don't love the man either but I watched the movie and he sure makes some good points backed up with scientific data that is very hard to dispute. You owe it to yourself to at least watch it. It's almost like the Harry Potter fiasco when it was first introduced. All the religious people were up in arms about its story line and forbid their children to see the movies but they had never seen them to pass judgment on them. >> And why did I lose credibility, Rob. Just because you didn't watch it >> either? Sometimes the facts are hard to accept, I know. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hypocrite. He has zero respect and credibility with me. When he moves > into a 2 bedroom ranch home, give me a call and we'll talk. > Hi Edwin, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > either but I watched the movie and he sure makes some good points backed > up with scientific data that is very hard to dispute. Would you like some links to data that disputes it? There are thousands of scientists who dispute man made global warming. Did you know in previous "global warmings" that co2 levels did not increase, yet Al tells you that co2 output is the main problem. You owe it to yourself to become a little educated. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=7e23a550-9cc4-4697-b730-b2d094f1628a http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/ http://www.acton.org/blog/index.html?/archives/1525-Profit-of-Doom.html Hell, I got hundreds. Gore is a political hack who wants YOU to believe his crap so you'll buy "Carbon Credits" (LOL) from HIS company. You owe it to yourself to at > least watch it. It's almost like the Harry Potter fiasco when it was > first introduced. All the religious people were up in arms about its [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> hypocrite. He has zero respect and credibility with me. When he moves >> into a 2 bedroom ranch home, give me a call and we'll talk. Rob, Thank you so much for attaching all the links for me to become more educated. Clearly you used Google to its best advantage. If YOU want to become more educated about BOTH sides of the argument, then, by all means, watch Gore's movie. Surely seeing BOTH sides of an argument is much better than taking someone else's opinion of what was presented. Oh, in the second link you sent, it describes 'one' scientist's controversial opinion while also saying 'Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." Make sure you see the 'vast majority' versus the 'one'. How could you offer that up as an argument?????? >> Hi Edwin, >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>> When he moves into a 2 bedroom ranch home, give me a call and we'll >>> talk. > Rob, > Thank you so much for attaching all the links for me to become more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Make sure you see the 'vast majority' versus the 'one'. How could you > offer that up as an argument?????? I can post hundreds more if you like but I think it would be a waste of our time. I'm done, I know better than to try to argue with a liberal but I just can't...help...myself. Liberal arguments are based on emotion, not facts. Saving the world, trees, animals, air, water, etc. can really get some people worked up, even if it's not based on fact. One last link, hopefully you'll enjoy this one. It's Penn and Teller video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2478048590555499448&q=penn+and+teller&t otal=1071&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5 >>> Hi Edwin, >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>>> When he moves into a 2 bedroom ranch home, give me a call and we'll >>>> talk. One last one for me Rob. News flash. I'm not in any way shape or form a liberal! I am a staunch conservative. I want to conserve out natural resources for my grand kids. I want every alien out of this country. I want every welfare recipient to work for his/her money. I don't want anyone to be given a free ride on my 'buck'. Thanks for the link. Tom >> Rob, >> Thank you so much for attaching all the links for me to become more [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >>>>> When he moves into a 2 bedroom ranch home, give me a call and we'll >>>>> talk. > Hi Edwin, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lifestyle............. I said 'our lifestyle' because I suspect I am in > the same lifestyle as you and everyone else here. I'm not asking anyone to "lower" themself. Material goods, be it a huge house, big cars, or fancy computer does not have anything to do with the character of an individual. I think I'm moraly superior to someone that preaches one thing but actually acts in a different manner. I don't love the man either > but I watched the movie and he sure makes some good points backed up with > scientific data that is very hard to dispute. You owe it to yourself to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> hypocrite. He has zero respect and credibility with me. When he moves >> into a 2 bedroom ranch home, give me a call and we'll talk. I hit the send button before I was finished. >> Hi Edwin, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> lifestyle............. I |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message