 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / January 2007Million Mile Saab 900 SPG
Check this guy out: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538098 A million miles on his 1990 SPG with only regular maintenance. Just collision damage replaced.  SignatureJeremy Visit my 1986 Saab 900T & me at: http://jerem43.home.att.net > Check this guy out: > http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538098 > A million miles on his 1990 SPG with only regular maintenance. Just > collision damage replaced. That'd be Peter. I was wondering when he'd hit it, I figured it was about due. Pity that Saab won't take it for their museum in trade for a new one, before the buyout that was the plan from what I understand. Dave Hinz >> Check this guy out: >> http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538098 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Dave Hinz What a bunch of chumps. It's only the world's greatest advertising opportunity. Film him with the Saab, highlight that he went 1 mil miles, say something like "Peter xx drive his Saab one million miles without any major repairs. As a reward, we gave him a new one asked him to do it again". I can't believe they'd be stupid enough to miss an opportunity like this. Even if we know that a newer one won't go the distance like his 900, the public doesn't. Some marketing genius probably decided that it might encourage people to hold on to their cars longer. >>> Check this guy out: >>> http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538098 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >900, the public doesn't. Some marketing genius probably decided that >it might encourage people to hold on to their cars longer. I was about to post this story. Even have him drive to the Factory gates, hand the guys to the security guard and say "The test drive was OK, I might buy one", then finish the ad focusing on the 1million mile ODO. With a strapline like "Saab, take your time" or something. SignatureCarl Robson Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com Now Playing at home:Robert Johnson-Honeymoon Blues > ... Some marketing genius probably decided that > it might encourage people to hold on to their cars longer. And that is the least thing they would want... They would prefer us to buy a new one and total it on the way home from the dealer, so we would have to buy another one. SignatureMH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '91 900i '95 900SE >>>Check this guy out: >>>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538098 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 900, the public doesn't. Some marketing genius probably decided that > it might encourage people to hold on to their cars longer. Funny, Toyota seems to think this is a good idea. But their top mileage owner is some guy with only a little over 300k miles AFAIR. I guess their marketing doods went to a different school of business? That kind of advertising goes a long way toward creating the "perception of reliability" which is far more important than any reality. Toyotas are not really any more long lived than SAABs, in fact the reverse is probably true, but that isn't the public's perception. Just ask someone not in tune with either brand... Signature-Fred W > >>>Check this guy out: > >>>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538098 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > -- > -Fred W You have GOT to be kidding. I have owned 4 Celicas and 1 Corolla. My wife is now on her second Saab. I drove all those Toyota's to between 150 - 200k, only getting rid of them out because I found something I wanted more at the time. I never had ANY problems with any of them other then wear items. The 2 Saabs have driven me nuts. Nothing really major (other then the turbo going at 30k, under warrenty thank God), just a lot of nudgy stupid crap, electric windows failing, e-brakes going, etc. Not to mention the incredible stupidity of putting the ignition between the seats so any liquid that spills goes into it like a drain. Lots of time sitting in the garage in winter with a hair dryer. I would love to meet the engineer that dreamed up that one. The one that had the turbo go was her current one, a 9-3 convertible. We bought it used, but originally I think it went for close to 40k, right? And the turbo goes at 30k?? That is just wrong. I am a fanatic for maintenence, so it isn't like we mistreated it, and it only had 20k on it when we got it, so how bad could it have been mistreated before? Then there is the top. That gave up the ghost last summer... again. This time out of warrenty, so we haven't even bothered getting it fixed, so now it's a hard top. I now own a Mini Cooper S with 125k on it. Bought it new loaded for 24k. Rides like it was new and has no problems, and that is a first year model! Sorry to go on a rant, but I just couldn't pass on comparing Toyota reliability to Saab. They may be more boring then a Saab, but they are in a completely different league for reliability. One car going a million miles does not make an entire line "reliable". >>That kind of advertising goes a long way toward creating the "perception >>of reliability" which is far more important than any reality. Toyotas [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You have GOT to be kidding. No. Not kidding at all. See below >I have owned 4 Celicas and 1 Corolla. My > wife is now on her second Saab. I drove all those Toyota's to between [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > God), just a lot of nudgy stupid crap, electric windows failing, > e-brakes going, etc. Sorry, your limited analogous data is interesting, but hardly of statistical significance. To counter your claims, I have owned 7 different SAABs (including the 4 I still have) and *none* have ever broken down and left me stranded. Have they required maintenance? Of course, both preventive and some corrective. But they have always done their jobs of getting me from here to there, hence they are reliable. I have owned exactly 1 (one) Toyota. It was a Celica GT 5 speed of forgotten vintage (70 something). That car was a complete piece of crappola. It was always broken, rusted, the interior was cheap and fell apart... you get the idea. Oh, yes... I bought it used. I bought it during the gas "crisis" to replace my perfectly good, low mileage Chevy Nova because the chevy had a gas-hog V8. What a mistake. But even though I had horrid reliability I would never say that Toyotas are unreliable as I don't have enough data points one way or another. OK, so you've never had a breakdown (other than a blown turbo on a used car with unknown service history) and you thing the reliability is poor on SAABs? Perhaps the issue is what reliability even means? I would suggest it means the vehicle can be relied upon to meet it's intended design objective: to get you from point A to point B. Not to mention the incredible stupidity of > putting the ignition between the seats so any liquid that spills goes > into it like a drain. Lots of time sitting in the garage in winter > with a hair dryer. I would love to meet the engineer that dreamed up > that one. It is (purportedly) a safety design issue. Putting the key on the dash exposes the driver's body parts to being impaled on said key in an accident. Also, you really shouldn't be drinking (and thereby spilling) stuff in your car anyway. It's not a safe practice as it leads to distraction from the task at hand (driving, not consumption). Yeah, I do it. I'm just careful not to spill. [sidebar] So where did this notion come from that one needs to chow down whenever traveling? Airlines, boats, cars... I don't understand the implied connection. [/sidebar] > The one that had the turbo go was her current one, a 9-3 > convertible. We bought it used, but originally I think it went for > close to 40k, right? And the turbo goes at 30k?? That is just wrong. > I am a fanatic for maintenence, so it isn't like we mistreated it, and > it only had 20k on it when we got it, so how bad could it have been > mistreated before? In 20k miles I could make any car a piece of total crap. Just thrash it from stone cold every day and don't change the oil or do any other maintenance. Don't believe me? Buy me a new car and I'll show you. ;-) Then there is the top. That gave up the ghost last > summer... again. This time out of warrenty, so we haven't even > bothered getting it fixed, so now it's a hard top. Here, I have to agree, absolutely. SAAB rag-tops suck. period. I wouldn't ever buy one (again). Did once. Drove the car about 2-3k miles and sold it (for a tidy profit I might add). > I now own a Mini Cooper S with 125k on it. Bought it new loaded for > 24k. Rides like it was new and has no problems, and that is a first > year model! I *really* want to try a cooper, but I know I'll never buy one. Just too non-pragmatic. ...and I already have three bitchin' motorcycles to ride for those occasions when I'm in that mood. > Sorry to go on a rant, but I just couldn't pass on comparing Toyota > reliability to Saab. They may be more boring then a Saab, but they are > in a completely different league for reliability. One car going a > million miles does not make an entire line "reliable". Ummm... Well, one car no. But a (relatively) large number of those cars? yes, yes it does. Signature-Fred W > >>That kind of advertising goes a long way toward creating the "perception > >>of reliability" which is far more important than any reality. Toyotas [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > -- > -Fred W Well, if nothing else maybe we can get this thread back on track... I agree that mine, or your's, experience is just that, a personal experience. But I think we both know that Toyata has enjoyed, for many years, one of the highest, if not THE highest reliability and satisfaction ratings out there. I do not believe a car getting me from A to B is the goal anymore, nor should it be. It should take us there with everything working, especially with what cars cost these days. I have owned a few British cars, and in fact still own a 1963 Austin Healey 3000. I think we all know about British cars, or at least their reputation. But based on the criteria that it is reliable if it doesn't leave me on the side of the road, then my Healey is very reliable. However, I still seem to spend a lot to time working on it;+}. I still hate that damn key. The convertible at least has a cupholder, a really, really bad one, but a holder nonetheless. I agree, in a perfect world we would just drive, and eat in the kitchen. But we don't, we have coffee, or soda. Saab needs to come to terms with that and at least try to make it as safe as possible to do it. Plus, why worry about keys when there are weapons of mass destruction out there??? Take a Cooper S out for a drive, I guarantee you will fall in love with it. HUGE smile factor. -Jim > I still hate that damn key. The convertible at least has a cupholder, > a really, really bad one, but a holder nonetheless. I agree, in a > perfect world we would just drive, and eat in the kitchen. But we > don't, we have coffee, or soda. Saab needs to come to terms with that > and at least try to make it as safe as possible to do it. Well, to get this up to date, the latest incantation of 9-3 (since '03) hstill have the key in the center, but it's a transponder, not an ordinary mechanical key so you are free to spill all sorts of fluids on it with no apparent harm. > Plus, why worry about keys when there are weapons of mass destruction > out there??? I guess the engineers decided to be concerned with the things within their owm sphere of influence? > Take a Cooper S out for a drive, I guarantee you will fall in love with > it. HUGE smile factor. Thanks. I'll try to. The fella I bought one of my bikes from (a BMW R1100RS) had just bought himself a Mini. Seems his missus fancied riding alongside him better than behind. Signature-Fred W >Well, to get this up to date, the latest incantation of 9-3 (since '03) >hstill have the key in the center, but it's a transponder, not an >ordinary mechanical key so you are free to spill all sorts of fluids on >it with no apparent harm Fred: How does the "transponder" vary from a "switch"? Doesn't it still have a mechanical system enabling some electrical contacts to bring the start/run process into play ? >>> Check this guy out: >>> http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538098 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 900, the public doesn't. Some marketing genius probably decided that > it might encourage people to hold on to their cars longer. Never underestimate the stupidity of "Nobody wants electric cars" GM. Next to Michael Dukakais riding on the tank one of the biggest public relations fiascos in history. >Never underestimate the stupidity of "Nobody wants electric cars" GM. Next >to Michael Dukakais riding on the tank one of the biggest public relations >fiascos in history. Ya know, I saw all sorts of problems with Dukakis as a candidate (the Democrats don't have a clue when it comes to picking someone who is actually electable and always let the extreme wing of the party pick candidates), but I never really understood why that tank shot got so much press. And buy the way, no one here wants electric cars either, unless the figure out some kind of a turbo system for them :-) >What a bunch of chumps. It's only the world's greatest advertising >opportunity. <shortened> >I can't believe they'd be stupid enough to miss an opportunity like >this. You say they're missing an opportunity - you may be right. But they may feel it's not the message they need at this time. The worst thing for any car manufacturer is to build a car that people hold onto for 15 years. The next worst thing is to become their own strongest competitor through the used market. The "long lasting car" myth is one of a series of strategies that assured SAAB fanatical following from a very restrictive fan club, whilst protecting them from greater success among an enlarged public. The "intelligent" or "thinking man's" car is another, along with the "car developed by aircraft engineers" whereas the strong emphasis on safety features probably improved their general market appeal - not good enough, obviously, to vindicate the overall approach, which just could not cut it in our tough, SUV world, where our greatest ambition is to buy a new car every 18 months. They may still be missing an opportunity though - not the purported longeivity of the car, but the opportunity to show that the company notices and cares about their customer. Maybe there's just no one left there who really cares. GF >You say they're missing an opportunity - you may be right. >But they may feel it's not the message they need at this time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >restrictive fan club, whilst protecting them from greater success among an >enlarged public. Yes, I noted that in my post. I think what the Saab marketeers missed though is what you pointed out: most people buy new and trade their cars frequently. No advertisement is going to change that. Those of us who drive cars for many years will do that for as long as they last - regardless of whether the marketing folks tell us about it. The general public, OTOH, will look at the longevity as a measurement of reliability (which it is not). But, it will be interpreted that way - and therefore greatly increase cars sales to the people who will always buy new and trade them anyway. MHO. <snip> >They may still be missing an opportunity though - not the >purported longeivity of the car, but the opportunity to show that the >company notices and cares about their customer. Maybe there's just no one >left there who really cares. Yes, that is a strong point. Showing that loyalty to the long term customer would again be a major marketing ploy - even if we know it does not exist at the dealer anymore. Another big mistake on their part. >> Check this guy out: >> http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538098 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > about due. Pity that Saab won't take it for their museum in trade for a > new one, before the buyout that was the plan from what I understand. Peter Gilbert - I saw some pictures from this year's US SOC National where he was placed "pride of place" at the front of the group photo. According to an article on the Trollhättan 'blog, he has donated the car to the Wisconsin Automobile Museum. I heard about a one million miler Mercedes, somewhere in India, but it was nowhere near as good condition at this SPG. Outstanding! Hmmm ... Just 850,000 miles to go :) Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ I bought my saab (1985 900s) because it was cheap. I just came off unemployment and my wife was tired of me using her car. I figured that if the car lasted 6 months I was ahead. It has now been over 2 years and I am still driving that car. And I might add proudly driving. I can't imagine driving it 17 years from now unless they find a new source for gas. If Mars has water, maybe it has oil fields too. rod > Check this guy out: > http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538098 > > A million miles on his 1990 SPG with only regular maintenance. Just > collision damage replaced. >If Mars >has water, maybe it has oil fields too. We should know soon. That dimwit passing himself off as US president plans to send some people there soon (oil company execs, I expect, that's who he usually sends in first). > I bought my saab (1985 900s) because it was cheap. I just came off > unemployment and my wife was tired of me using her car. I figured that if > the car lasted 6 months I was ahead. It has now been over 2 years and I am > still driving that car. And I might add proudly driving. I can't imagine > driving it 17 years from now unless they find a new source for gas. If Mars > has water, maybe it has oil fields too. Hey, you could always convert it to run on E85 or even E100. :) John If I can figure out how to convert my car to run on E100 i will bring you a big check signed by all the farmers here in the cornbelt of America. rod >> I bought my saab (1985 900s) because it was cheap. I just came off >> unemployment and my wife was tired of me using her car. I figured that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John > If I can figure out how to convert my car to run on E100 i will bring you a > big check signed by all the farmers here in the cornbelt of America. Economically? We're not there quite yet. 5 years from now, let's talk. >Economically? We're not there quite yet. 5 years from now, let's talk. Expect the oil companies to start buying up farms, or at least all farm contracts, when we reach that economic breakpoint. >>Economically? We're not there quite yet. 5 years from now, let's talk. > > Expect the oil companies to start buying up farms, or at least all > farm contracts, when we reach that economic breakpoint. Start? And really, so what if they do? Someone has to do it. You can, I can. There's an etanol plant going in about 6 miles from here, will be up to full production in 3 years. The coop where my sister lives in Oklahoma, same deal on a bit of an earlier schedule. Much of the cost disadvantage right now is in economies of scale and startup costs. Far as I'm concerned, we should subsidize the hell out of those startup costs & get this thing going. >Start? And really, so what if they do? Someone has to do it. You can, >I can. There's an etanol plant going in about 6 miles from here, will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >as I'm concerned, we should subsidize the hell out of those startup >costs & get this thing going. Yeah, great idea... subsidize the farmers some more and some startups and/or oil companies that will then screw us on price and walk away with large profits. I see the advantages. >>Far >>as I'm concerned, we should subsidize the hell out of those startup >>costs & get this thing going. > Yeah, great idea... subsidize the farmers some more and some startups > and/or oil companies that will then screw us on price and walk away > with large profits. I see the advantages. There's nothing stopping _YOU_ from being one of the people profiting from this, either through direct ownership or by owning stock in a company doing it. And, I'd rather give money to farmers in this country, than people in other countries who don't like us. Let them drink their oil, far as I'm concerned. Sooner we get away from using imported oil, the better. If that means tax breaks and outright expenses to get there, well, how many days of Iraq war expenses would it take to get us ready to be self-sufficient? >There's nothing stopping _YOU_ from being one of the people profiting >from this, either through direct ownership or by owning stock in a >company doing it. My objection is to the government subsidizing anybody. You want to start a company? Pony up the money and do it. Can't make it happen? Then don't do it. I don't want to pay for someone else's business expenses with my taxes or through a deduction that has the same effect. >And, I'd rather give money to farmers in this >country, than people in other countries who don't like us. Well, I just don't want to give away the money. Giving it to farmers is slightly less revolting than giving it to Exxon. >Let them >drink their oil, far as I'm concerned. Sooner we get away from using >imported oil, the better. If that means tax breaks and outright >expenses to get there, well, how many days of Iraq war expenses would it >take to get us ready to be self-sufficient? Well, a bunch of neo-cons are making a ton of money off the war. Spending in that direction has made some connected companies $300b richer at taxpayer expense - now and for a long time to come. Don't expect that to change anytime soon. But, unless the gov't ends up owning a large share of the next energy development, they should not give any money, land, or deductions away. You want tax money? Good, pass a share of the company onto the US gov't so the taxpayers get some money back from their investment. My money should not be used to put profits in someone else's pockets. >>There's nothing stopping _YOU_ from being one of the people profiting >>from this, either through direct ownership or by owning stock in a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > expenses with my taxes or through a deduction that has the same > effect. Great. Well you're paying for a hell of a trip in a sandbox at the moment, and so am I. >>And, I'd rather give money to farmers in this >>country, than people in other countries who don't like us. > Well, I just don't want to give away the money. Giving it to farmers > is slightly less revolting than giving it to Exxon. Fine. Then keep using Dino products, and those of us who actually give a sh.t will do all the heavy lifting. As usual. Meanwhile the money we spend in certain countries goes to fund people who hate us. >>Let them >>drink their oil, far as I'm concerned. Sooner we get away from using >>imported oil, the better. If that means tax breaks and outright >>expenses to get there, well, how many days of Iraq war expenses would it >>take to get us ready to be self-sufficient? > Well, a bunch of neo-cons are making a ton of money off the war. You mean the no-bid contracts to Hallburton? The ones that Clinton put in place, those ones? > But, unless the gov't ends up owning a large share of the next energy > development, they should not give any money, land, or deductions away. > You want tax money? Good, pass a share of the company onto the US > gov't so the taxpayers get some money back from their investment. My > money should not be used to put profits in someone else's pockets. Apparently the bigger picture of getting us independant of foreign energy escapes you. >Great. Well you're paying for a hell of a trip in a sandbox at the >moment, and so am I. Yeah, well the population of the country was too foolish to see through the obvious lies... by the time they figured it out we were in deep. Nothing new there. >> Well, I just don't want to give away the money. Giving it to farmers >> is slightly less revolting than giving it to Exxon. > >Fine. Then keep using Dino products, and those of us who actually give >a sh.t will do all the heavy lifting. As usual. Meanwhile the money >we spend in certain countries goes to fund people who hate us. Being willing to sacrifice has nothing to do with spending gov't money on private enterprise. >> Well, a bunch of neo-cons are making a ton of money off the war. > >You mean the no-bid contracts to Hallburton? >The ones that Clinton put in place, those ones? I'll ignore your political troll. They've spent $300b on the war, most of it going to US companies, That's a heck of a lot bigger than Halliburton. >> But, unless the gov't ends up owning a large share of the next energy >> development, they should not give any money, land, or deductions away. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Apparently the bigger picture of getting us independant of foreign >energy escapes you. Apparently the fact that private enterprise should be funded by private money escapes you. >>Great. Well you're paying for a hell of a trip in a sandbox at the >>moment, and so am I. > > Yeah, well the population of the country was too foolish to see > through the obvious lies... by the time they figured it out we were in > deep. Nothing new there. You mean the ones Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Gore, and a bunch of others were telling? Here's a few. See if you recognize any of the names: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. Oh, I could go on and on, but let's save time and post a link and you can reject the whole thing at once. You are familiar with Snopes.com, I hope? http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp The take-away here, Bob, is that the Democrats had the _same_ bad intelligence that the Republicans had. And now that they don't like how things are going, they're looking skyward, whistling, and pretending they had nothing to do with it. That disgusts me. >>> Well, I just don't want to give away the money. Giving it to farmers >>> is slightly less revolting than giving it to Exxon. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Being willing to sacrifice has nothing to do with spending gov't money > on private enterprise. You missed my point. >>> Well, a bunch of neo-cons are making a ton of money off the war. >> >>You mean the no-bid contracts to Hallburton? >>The ones that Clinton put in place, those ones? > I'll ignore your political troll. Why? It's true. > They've spent $300b on the war, most > of it going to US companies, That's a heck of a lot bigger than > Halliburton. OK whatever. Thing is, that $300b doesn't just evaporate, it employs people in high tech businesses and industries. Who then go on to spend it on other goods and services. The money doesn't just evaporate just because you spend it, you see, it _circulates_. >>Apparently the bigger picture of getting us independant of foreign >>energy escapes you. > > Apparently the fact that private enterprise should be funded by > private money escapes you. When the good of the nation is served by giving a startup money, hell yes, fund them if it's a valid technology. We're a hell of a lot better served by that money going into something that builds _OUR_ infrastructure for long term independance. Regardless of who you decide not to buy stock in. >The take-away here, Bob, is that the Democrats had the _same_ bad >intelligence that the Republicans had. And now that they don't like how >things are going, they're looking skyward, whistling, and pretending >they had nothing to do with it. That disgusts me. This has nothing to do with the Democrats or the Republicans. The one and only person responsible for the decision to go to war was George Bush (Bush II; Bush I had intelligence and integrity. Too bad the lush didn't inherit either quality). You know what disgusts ms? When the President's right hand man leaks the name of a covert CIA agent as political revenge and the President takes no action. Leaking the name of a covert agent has been a treasonable offense punishable by death since the Revolutionary War. Bush II looks the other way. Now that's disgusting. >OK whatever. Thing is, that $300b doesn't just evaporate, it employs >people in high tech businesses and industries. Who then go on to spend >it on other goods and services. The money doesn't just evaporate just >because you spend it, you see, it _circulates_. So we should all pay taxes to make sure some selected CEO's get rich and some other people get jobs? I can't believe you'd buy into the age old "start a war, make my buddies rich, boost the economy" strategy. Sure, the war helped Bush II buy himself out of a recession but unfortunately he's setting up the next President to face the same problem his Father faced - huge, record setting deficits left by his predecessor that suck all the money out of the economy. Then, to cover the deficit payments, the next President has to raise taxes and sell even more of what we own to overseas interests. Way to go. >> Apparently the fact that private enterprise should be funded by >> private money escapes you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >infrastructure for long term independance. Regardless of who you decide >not to buy stock in. The "good of a nation" would be served by requiring partnerships with the taxpayers of this country whenever public money is handed out. You want money? OK, sign over half of the profits. Investors deserve a return proportional to the risk taken. >>The take-away here, Bob, is that the Democrats had the _same_ bad >>intelligence that the Republicans had. And now that they don't like how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and only person responsible for the decision to go to war was George > Bush And the congress who authorized it. Did you READ the quotes, Bob? > You know what disgusts ms? When the President's right hand man leaks > the name of a covert CIA agent as political revenge and the President > takes no action. I must have missed the part where that has been determined to be fact. > Leaking the name of a covert agent has been a > treasonable offense punishable by death since the Revolutionary War. Tell me again how she's a covert agent when she has an office job at a building with a big freaking sign on the outside? >>OK whatever. Thing is, that $300b doesn't just evaporate, it employs >>people in high tech businesses and industries. Who then go on to spend >>it on other goods and services. The money doesn't just evaporate just >>because you spend it, you see, it _circulates_. > So we should all pay taxes to make sure some selected CEO's get rich > and some other people get jobs? Those CEOs employ people like me, and maybe you. And then we spend money. > I can't believe you'd buy into the age > old "start a war, make my buddies rich, boost the economy" strategy. Don't presume to speak for me; you're barely qualified to speak for yourself. >And the congress who authorized it. Did you READ the quotes, Bob? You like reading? Go read what Lawrence Wilkenson had to say about what he saw and heard. You might recall him, he's a guy with integrity who worked for another guy with integrity, Colin Powell. Funny, people with integrity seem to run from this administration. >I must have missed the part where that has been determined to be fact. You expected them to find a memo authorizing it ? Scooter was convicted of lying about it. Funny he choose to lie about something that never happened, eh? >Tell me again how she's a covert agent when she has an office job at a >building with a big freaking sign on the outside? Apparently you're smarter than the Justice Department who evaluated this issue before engaging in a major investigation and the White House officials who testified rather that quash this non-infraction. You need to turn down the talk radio; it's melting your brain. >> So we should all pay taxes to make sure some selected CEO's get rich >> and some other people get jobs? > >Those CEOs employ people like me, and maybe you. And then we spend >money. While they pad their fat pockets and give small gears like you a teensy tidbit. You're a tiny little cog in a very big machine - you're just stuck too far into the box to even see that. You're the equivalent of the factory worker past. Enjoy the piecework. >> I can't believe you'd buy into the age >> old "start a war, make my buddies rich, boost the economy" strategy. > >Don't presume to speak for me; you're barely qualified to speak for >yourself. Ooh, onto the personal insults. You certainly know when someone has run out of valid arguments: they move to personal insults. I pity you Dave. The neo-Cons have bought you lock, stock, and barrel with a few tidbits. Keep barking like a seal and enjoying the fish they throw you. >>And the congress who authorized it. Did you READ the quotes, Bob? > > You like reading? Go read what Lawrence Wilkenson had to say about So you haven't read the quotes, or you don't like the uncomfortable truth they tell. I understand. >>Those CEOs employ people like me, and maybe you. And then we spend >>money. > While they pad their fat pockets and give small gears like you a > teensy tidbit. You're a tiny little cog in a very big machine - you're > just stuck too far into the box to even see that. You're the > equivalent of the factory worker past. Enjoy the piecework. You have no idea of my profession, level, or pay scale. And no, I'm not interested in comparing resumes with you. >>Don't presume to speak for me; you're barely qualified to speak for >>yourself. > > Ooh, onto the personal insults. You certainly know when someone has > run out of valid arguments: they move to personal insults. Yes, I noticed you had run out of useful things to say rather a while ago. > I pity you Dave. The neo-Cons have bought you lock, stock, and barrel > with a few tidbits. Keep barking like a seal and enjoying the fish > they throw you. You know, it's funny. I've never seen anyone who uses the word "neo-cons" ever have anything useful to say. I wonder why that is. >You know, it's funny. I've never seen anyone who uses the word >"neo-cons" ever have anything useful to say. I wonder why that is. Dave, you seem to be an intelligent guy, just brainwashed. So, here's some free advice . Maybe you can still be saved. Your problem is that you are so far imbedded in the party system that you've lost the ability to look at each issue rationally and make an intelligent decision. Instead, you look at everything as an assault on "your party" and try to come with excuses for it. You end up trying to defend things that are indefensible and look really, really foolish doing it. Instead lose the party affiliation and with it the "defend the party at all costs" attitude. Examine each issue on its own merits at make a decision as to what's logical and reasonable and actually in the best interests of the country. Forget about which candidate/party it gives an advantage to - just decided the issue based on the information available. Make choices that defend honesty, integrity, the Constitution, the lofty goals of the founding fathers, the very fabric of our country. Sure, at the end of the year, you'll have to make a decision in the voting booth for one of the old party candidates. That, unfortunately, is our current system. But, in between you won't make yourself look foolish trying to come up with excuses for their bad decisions, bad policies, illegal actions, and generally sub-par behavior. >>You know, it's funny. I've never seen anyone who uses the word >>"neo-cons" ever have anything useful to say. I wonder why that is. > > Dave, you seem to be an intelligent guy, just brainwashed. So, here's > some free advice . Maybe you can still be saved. You disagree with me, that doesn't make you smarter than me. Your reluctance to comment on the specific points, in fact, sas rather the opposite. > Your problem is that you are so far imbedded in the party system that > you've lost the ability to look at each issue rationally and make an > intelligent decision. No, I'm not imbedded in anything. > Instead, you look at everything as an assault on > "your party" No, I don't. Again, don't presume to be my spokesman. Goodbye, bob, feel free to get in the last word; I won't read it, and I won't miss anything of value. <plonk> >No, I don't. Again, don't presume to be my spokesman. I guess I was wrong. There is no hope for you. You prefer to remain with your head firmly stuck up the butt of the neo-con conglomeration while they pull you and your kind along like lemmings. Too bad, you probably have the skills to be an independent thinker, but you lack the ability to execute it. >Goodbye, bob, >feel free to get in the last word; I won't read it, and I won't miss >anything of value. The retreat of the true loser, the condescending "you can have the last word". LOL. ><plonk> That's bullshit Dave, 'cause I know you're still reading. But now you're stuck and you can't reply. Thanks for the laughs. >> <plonk> > > That's bullshit Dave, 'cause I know you're still reading. But now > you're stuck and you can't reply. Thanks for the laughs. I got "plonked" for my sentiments on a much similar matter. There were a couple more replies :) It's fine for people to put their fingers in their ears when they've had enough, but what is a shame is when people do so out of obvious party loyalty. Politics is changing so quickly - heck, I used to be a "lefty", but I have much more in common with our Tory party (the "right" .. Like your Republicans) than with our traditional "left" (Labour ... Tony Blair's wild bunch ... Like your Democrats). You're right Bob - stand up for what is right, good and founded in some basis of history which endowed those principles as something to be upheld. Leopards change their spots and when it all comes down to a single salient, condensed, considered fact, politicians are in it for themselves and nowhere more so than over the pond in the US. We're (the UK) fast following and I really think that's a shame ... I see that as the end of convincing politics in the UK. The last Gulf War was absolute testament to that fact. It doesn't matter what the quotes were and from which side of the political spectrum they came from - the fact of the matter was, it was an illegal entry, overthrow and take-over of a nation which benefited GWB and his corporations more than anyone else (and GB senior with his arms corporations). The sad shame of it all was the UK and some of our European cousins (and the Aussies) joined in on an ill-conceived crusade; some more jubilant than others. The fact of the matter is, the WMDs were sold to and developed by us (the UK for building a nice middle-east bloc against The Mad Ayatollah), so we knew they had them, but couldn't find them when we went on the witch-hunt ... Oh, and they still have not materialised. What a crock! Well, the Batha party certainly did us proud when BP needed a boost in the '70s, but cross the US by suggesting a move to the Euro to trade oil barrels, rather than US Dollars, then be prepared to be removed, tried and executed from crimes against "W". Funny that, Venezuela backed just the same motion and ... Oh, had a CIA backed military coup ... Ha, f.cking, ha, which failed :) Oh, so did North Korea and wait for it ... Iran. Hmmm ... The "Axis of Evil" certainly seem to be a bunch who favour the Euro to the USD for the trade of oil. Now, wouldn't that just destroy a bunch of corporations owned by GB (Senior), particularly, and GWB? When it comes down to power production for the future, people like Dave are right - make your own power and stop having to over-throw "foreign regimes in nations that hate you", just for their oil. We seem to be a lot more receptive to the nuclear option in Europe, but the world has had a whole new can of worms has just opened with Iran. Why condemn them and impose sanctions? Why not help develop their nuclear fuel strategy and partner with them? Certain other nations states in the UN could do so as "concerned friends" and assure the UN, generally, of their abstinence from developing nuclear weapons - China, Russia and Venezuela spring to mind immediately; Venezuela particularly. Seasons greetings, all :) Keep burning that oil ... Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >>> <plonk> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I got "plonked" for my sentiments on a much similar matter. There were a > couple more replies :) I don't think I ever plonked you, Paul, I think we agreed to disagree. > It's fine for people to put their fingers in their ears when they've had > enough, but what is a shame is when people do so out of obvious party > loyalty. Actually, Paul, I pointed out to Bob dozens of quotes from the other party, yet he blames Bush anyway, and refused to comment on the data I provided (with cites of time and date, no less). > You're right Bob - stand up for what is right, good and founded in some > basis of history which endowed those principles as something to be upheld. And when things don't to Bob's way, pretend it's the other guy's fault. > When it comes down to power production for the future, people like Dave are > right - make your own power and stop having to over-throw "foreign regimes > in nations that hate you", just for their oil. Absolutely. And subsidize the hell out of it get things going. It's a LOT cheaper than going off to play in a sandbox somewhere every decade or two. >> When it comes down to power production for the future, people like Dave are >> right - make your own power and stop having to over-throw "foreign regimes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > LOT cheaper than going off to play in a sandbox somewhere every decade > or two. I'm with you on this one - I'm very much in favour of subsidising something as important as farming, especially when it produces fuel. In the UK, we've had some troubled times with farming - crops and animals - and our Government(s) did the right thing ... Kept them going with subsidies; even to the superficially absurd extreme of paying them _not_ to farm. It was not the usual short-sighted policy and really shows the importance of farming. Well, it has paid off because we still have farmers who are able to farm and Britain is now starting to produce some quality produce again that is the envy of our neighbours and very much worthy of their Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée. I really hope bio-fuel takes off in a big way in the US. We're starting to see it at the pumps over here. I think it will be a long time though, since so many major corporations are locked into oil in one way or another. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >I really hope bio-fuel takes off in a big way in the US. We're starting to >see it at the pumps over here. I think it will be a long time though, since >so many major corporations are locked into oil in one way or another. I want to see BioWillie pumps in the UK. SignatureCarl Robson Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com Now Playing at home:Christian Death-Death of Josef > Actually, Paul, I pointed out to Bob dozens of quotes from the other > party, yet he blames Bush anyway, and refused to comment on the data I > provided (with cites of time and date, no less). I have no desire to enter into this thread, but in the interest of fairness, I must point out that the snopes.com page includes a very important disclaimer (reproduced below). Also, don't forget to read all of the context information which forms the bulk of the web page's content. John Quoted from http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp : "However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them -- several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in 'degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.' " >Quoted from http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp : >"However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of >them -- <snip> announced the action had been successful in >'degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and >nuclear weapons.' " John: I don't really care which political ding-dong said what and with what political goal. I'm aligned with facts and the Constitution, not politicians and parties. Bush lied, twisted, bent, distorted, facts whilst trying to ruin the careers and credibility of anyone who dared oppose their false presentations. Why did Bush want to attack so badly? If Bush waited and they found no WMD's, then he'd have no reason to attack. And he really wanted to attack. Want to know why? Remember the "Energy Task Force" meetings that Dick Cheney held with Enron and other major oil company exec's? These meetings took place starting long before 9-11-2001. Cheney has refused to discuss what was talked about. Some non-partisan groups have been fighting since April 2001 to get the "task force" minutes released under the FOIA and extended lawsuits up through the Supreme Court. At this point, the only thing they have managed to pry loose are the graphics presentations from those meetings. But, that might just be enough. This graphic shows Iraq sliced up like a side of beef to be served (funny thing to do with Iraq in 2000/2001 since we had no business going on there): http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf Rumors have consistently surfaced that US oil companies were very concerned that when IRAQ's sanctions were lifted (which was being pushed for by some countries) that they would be left out of the oil bonanza that would result (IRAQ has much of the world's oil). It was getting close to "lift the sanctions" time since Saddaam had conformed to most of the UN requirements. US oil companies were about to be left out of the biggest bonanza of the millennium. Just a rumor though, right? Well, take a look at this presentation from the Task force, wherein they were looking at the "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi oil fields". http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf Funny they should be so concerned about who was getting the Iraqi oil, when it could not possibly be US companies, as we were forbidden from doing business with IRAQ under the sanctions. Ah, but no Saddaam, no sanctions. Read some facts, learn a lot. Or in this case, just look at the pictures. > I have no desire to enter into this thread, but in the interest of fairness, I > must point out that the snopes.com page includes a very important disclaimer > (reproduced below). Also, don't forget to read all of the context information > which forms the bulk of the web page's content. > "However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of > them -- several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 'degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and > nuclear weapons.' " Oh, agreed. Classic example of politicians saying one thing while meaning another, so no matter how things play out, they can pretend they are on the side they determine they want to be on later. "I voted for that before I voted against it" and all that. This selective memory is what disgusts me. >Oh, agreed. Classic example of politicians saying one thing while >meaning another, so no matter how things play out, they can pretend they >are on the side they determine they want to be on later. "I voted for >that before I voted against it" and all that. This selective memory is >what disgusts me. But apparently when the President of the USA knowingly lies to the public, ignores any intelligence that contradicts his predefined answers, directs his intelligence agencies only to find certain answers, keeps a Sr. Cabinet Officer on staff who committed treason by revealing the name of a CIA agent, and starts a $352b war for the financial gain of his friends - Dave's OK with that. Funny guy. >I got "plonked" for my sentiments on a much similar matter. There were a >couple more replies :) He, he, he >It's fine for people to put their fingers in their ears when they've had >enough, but what is a shame is when people do so out of obvious party >loyalty. I try to enlighten people. It's my mission in life. Few are willing to step back from their immersion. > Politics is changing so quickly - Yes, things are changing here too - and not for the better. >We're (the UK) fast following and I >really think that's a shame ... I see that as the end of convincing politics >in the UK. It's a sad state here. More money, more corruption. >take-over of a nation which benefited GWB and his corporations more than >anyone else (and GB senior with his arms corporations). The sad shame of it >all was the UK and some of our European cousins (and the Aussies) joined in >on an ill-conceived crusade; some more jubilant than others. Yes, a complete corporate plan. Sad that the people were too stupid to see that at the time. They don't read much and few think for themselves. I'm all for kicking butt when it's deserved - but this was not a case of that. >When it comes down to power production for the future, people like Dave are >right - make your own power and stop having to over-throw "foreign regimes >in nations that hate you", just for their oil. Let's leave Dave out of this - he seems bent on justifying the war :-) You're right though, we could use an alternative. But, I don't agree with using public money to make private individuals and companies rich though - and that's the scheme here. >We seem to be a lot more receptive to the nuclear option in Europe, but the >world has had a whole new can of worms has just opened with Iran. Why >condemn them and impose sanctions? Why not help develop their nuclear fuel >strategy and partner with them? I have issues with that. I don't much trust them. Perhaps that's a US bias... but we've had bad experiences with them. >Certain other nations states in the UN could >do so as "concerned friends" and assure the UN, generally, of their >abstinence from developing nuclear weapons - China, Russia and Venezuela >spring to mind immediately; Venezuela particularly. Well, we already had inspectors in the plants in NK. Bush brain fouled that deal up big time - and they re-started the nuke program. I don't think Bush much liked the program. >> When it comes down to power production for the future, people like Dave are >> right - make your own power and stop having to over-throw "foreign regimes >> in nations that hate you", just for their oil. > You're right though, we could use an alternative. But, I don't agree > with using public money to make private individuals and companies rich > though - and that's the scheme here. Well, I'm quite _for_ the idea. I think government investment into something that can fundamentally change things for the better is the right thing to do. I don't say forever, but I do say so to get the ball rolling. A venture that is set to take on the oil companies (who really are dug in to the roots of western culture) needs some government backing just to get them up to the same playing field. What happens after that is "the market". I'd buy bio-ethanol if I had a car that could run it. In fact, I'm going to make a concerted effort to convert mine once I think I can fuel on bio-ethanol alone, but it is going to have to be a little more widespread before I can do that. The county in which I live is plentiful with pumps that supply bio-ethanol, but I can't guarantee that elsewhere in the country and I think I'd need to ditch conventional ignition before I could run a closed-loop fuel injection system that could understand fuel from low grade petrol to high octane E85. My C900 T8 is going to need some fettling with :) Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > My C900 T8 is going to need some fettling with :) Paul, if you're going to go off topic like this and start talking about old Saabs, I suggest you find a more appropriate forum :-) I might suggest Saabcentral, but they seem to be having problems at the moment?? >> My C900 T8 is going to need some fettling with :) > > Paul, if you're going to go off topic like this and start talking about > old Saabs, I suggest you find a more appropriate forum :-) I might > suggest Saabcentral, but they seem to be having problems at the moment?? Not a problem to me - I quite happily gurgle away on UK SAABs, 900 Aero, SAAB Central and a number of other national/own language forums :) Hey, talking of the 'Million Mile SAAB' (er-hum) ... I read that the gearbox was re-built after 200,000 miles, but was then good for the remainder of the million miles. What do we do in the first 200,000 (or 100,000 if you're me!) that we do not do thereafter? For me, it was "upping" the boost to Type M specifications and dragging Evos, Scoobies and bikes off the line ... Bad idea :o Or, are we saying that the gearbox is inherently poor and that a good re-build will last for the remainder of the car's life? Inquiring minds need to know ... Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > Not a problem to me - I quite happily gurgle away on UK SAABs, 900 Aero, > SAAB Central and a number of other national/own language forums :) Oops, thought I'd deleted that post.. was supposed to say Saabscene.. anyone know what's up with them by the way? They've been off the air since the week before Christmas. > Hey, talking of the 'Million Mile SAAB' (er-hum) ... I read that the gearbox > was re-built after 200,000 miles, but was then good for the remainder of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Inquiring minds need to know ... I had to replace the box on my '96 9000 Aero at 160K, 5 months after I got it. I put it down to over-enthusiastic driving... Maybe once you've gone through the trauma & expense of a "new" box, you treat it a bit more gently? I know I do.. (most of the time :) Happy Hogmanay by the way :) |
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
|
©2008 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.