 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2009{OT} Bambi seals fate of GM and Crapsler...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=worldwide  SignatureScott in Florida > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=worldwide Good. If emissions rules hadn't been jammed down the throats of car makers in the past, they never would've done anything on their own. It's time to kick them in the balls again. > > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=world > > wide > > Good. If emissions rules hadn't been jammed down the throats of car makers > in the past, they never would've done anything on their own. It's time to > kick them in the balls again. I don't believe it's a matter of the car companies doing this, it's a matter of the car companies saying to themselves are we going to be able to sell these pigs and will they be profitable. If the answer is no, then why stay in business. Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" >> > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=world >> > wide [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to sell these pigs and will they be profitable. If the answer is no, > then why stay in business. My mechanic has an interesting theory: GM & Ford forgot to do their market research BEFORE designing their best-selling SUVs. They never figured out that what most SUV buyers wanted was space, not the ability to drive over boulders and through streams, like in the macho commercials. If they'd figured this out, they would've offered more 2WD versions of their road hogs, which would've make at least an incremental improvement in their fleet mileage numbers. > >> > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=wo > >> > rld [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > hogs, which would've make at least an incremental improvement in their fleet > mileage numbers. That's not right either. Most of the SUV's are for the soccer moms and dads to get the kids and for getting to work in a snowstorm. The hard core machines are NOT the vehicles you see on the urban roads today. Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" >> >> > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=wo >> >> > rld [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > dads to get the kids and for getting to work in a snowstorm. The hard > core machines are NOT the vehicles you see on the urban roads today. Yeah. I've heard that story about snowstorms and safety. But the car makers obviously did little or no research on the subject. If they had, here's what would've happened: 1) They would've given buyers SUVs with front wheel drive. 2) They would NOT have loaded up dealers' lots with V-8 models, which are NOT necessary for handling snow. 3) They would equip more SUV inventory with tires that actually make sense for their customers, most of whom are not driving off-road. 4) They would NOT have ditched the station wagon idea. Notice all the Subarus on the road? I don't see many of those in ditches. But, when it's snowing here, I see plenty of SUVs waiting for tow trucks. >>> >> > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=wo >>> >> > rld [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> > to sell these pigs and will they be profitable. If the answer is no, >>> > then why stay in business. JOE SAID >>> My mechanic has an interesting theory: GM & Ford forgot to do their >>> market [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> fleet >>> mileage numbers. THEN JOE SAID > Yeah. I've heard that story about snowstorms and safety. But the car > makers obviously did little or no research on the subject. If they had, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Notice all the Subarus on the road? I don't see many of those in ditches. > But, when it's snowing here, I see plenty of SUVs waiting for tow trucks. Does Joe even realize that he's arguing against himself? First, he takes a position against big 4WD SUV, then points to SUVs waiting around in ditches for the tow truck. The facts of SUVs, The vast majority are sold with 2WD and highway tires. Owners then take the highway tires off and install giant rims with narrow sidewalls and fat treads, all of these traits are bad for driving in snow, or even in rain. Most SUVs are sold to families with children, and they want the sheer physical size. Smaller SUVs (the Toyota 4Runners of the pack) come standard with highway tires, and many with 4WD. Buyers then purchase option packages that include more aggressive tires and lift kits. Less than 10% of the Suburban/Excursion sized SUVs have 4WD, and the tire packages that come after the trucks leave the factory are normally local options -- many are installed by the buyers themselves and not the dealership. All American SUVs are built on truck platforms, all trucks are built with RWD and ladder-frames. Automakers moved away from the car-based station wagons because of federal regulations spurred on by environmentalist lobbies. Trucks were not subjected to the same rules because at the time the rules went into place, trucks were used primarily for work. The automakers learned there was a market for trucks with nicer interior appointments, then they learned that they could build a solid top that displaced a add-on camper shell, and they could put in rear doors, and viola, a station wagon again on a truck platform. The SUV was born. Many SUV owners use them to pull boats or other kinds of trailers, and the big V8 is desirable. How do you _always_ come down almost exactly 180 degrees wrong on everything you say? >>>> >> > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=wo >>>> >> > rld [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > Many SUV owners use them to pull boats or other kinds of trailers, and the > big V8 is desirable. The fact that some owners tow things only means that buyers should be given the option (and enough product knowledge) to NOT buy a monster they don't need. Based on how many SUVs I see growing mold on used car lots, I think a shitload of buyers bought the wrong thing, probably because the RIGHT thing didn't exist for easy purchase. > How do you _always_ come down almost exactly 180 degrees wrong on > everything you say? I didn't. But you're an idiot, so you think I did. > The fact that some owners tow things only means that buyers should be > given the option (and enough product knowledge) to NOT buy a monster they > don't need. Based on how many SUVs I see growing mold on used car lots, I > think a shitload of buyers bought the wrong thing, probably because the > RIGHT thing didn't exist for easy purchase. Is it the government's job to tell people what they should or should not drive? If so, should the government prescribe everyone drive Red cars with reflective strips on all four sides and the roof, have no more than 1.5L displacement, 5-point safety harnesses for all occupants? What other requirements shoudl government teach us is RIGHT for us? PS I happen to agree with your premise, by the way -- many SUV buyers seem to have bought an image, not a utility. But, I don't care what they buy, I only care what I buy. If I support restrictions on what they buy, I may end up restricting what I can buy, and that would be bad for me. The "right" thing has always existed, they simply opted for something you and I would not have purchased. >> The fact that some owners tow things only means that buyers should be >> given the option (and enough product knowledge) to NOT buy a monster they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > displacement, 5-point safety harnesses for all occupants? What other > requirements shoudl government teach us is RIGHT for us? It's interesting that your response is identical to 1000 others I get whenever I suggest that many SUV owners bought the wrong thing, and that car makers should provide better choices for EASY PURCHASE (meaning "not a special order, no waiting"). I never even remotely suggested government involvement. Where did you get that idea from? >>> The fact that some owners tow things only means that buyers should be >>> given the option (and enough product knowledge) to NOT buy a monster [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Where did you get that idea from? Because we're talking about government sealing the fate of GM and Chrysler. Who else should tell consumers what the "right" choice is? Obviously the consumer is incapable of making the right choice on his own, so it takes government intervention to explain the right choice. You've already described the entire works of Marx in a single paragraph, having a government worker to explain what is right is a logical extension of your previously stated positions. Dealership lots are covered with acres upon acres of other kinds of cars to buy, "easy purchase, no waiting." >>>> The fact that some owners tow things only means that buyers should be >>>> given the option (and enough product knowledge) to NOT buy a monster [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > government worker to explain what is right is a logical extension of your > previously stated positions. Nobody's sealing their fate. They sealed their own fate many years ago. Let's consider 2001, for example. Did it take a rocket scientist to figure out that increased turmoil in the Middle East would result in $4.00 per gallon gasoline? Of course not. Did we see significant improvements in SUV design 4-5-6 years later? Nope. Don't tell me about SUV hybrids. They're a late arrival, and better (albeit temporary) solutions were available in 2001. > Dealership lots are covered with acres upon acres of other kinds of cars > to buy, "easy purchase, no waiting." But too many of those SUVs are the wrong kind. 1) 6 cylinder for better fuel economy. Most people don't tow things. Most of the ladies I see driving SUVs are not carpenters, masons or plumbers who need to load tons of stuff in their SUVs. 2) Front wheel drive for the snow factor. Proven to be the best thing for snow. 3) Same body style for people who need to carry bulky stuff. I would've bought something like that if it had existed in 2004 when I bought my Tacoma. > >> >> > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer > >> >> > =wo [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Notice all the Subarus on the road? I don't see many of those in ditches. > But, when it's snowing here, I see plenty of SUVs waiting for tow trucks. Well, I agree with you on the V8's UNLESS you have one of those 10000 lb boats to tow. Yes, there are a lot of the subaru's on the road, but they are small and don't appeal to everyone. So you think everybody except you should be driving a small car? Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" > So you think everybody except you should be driving a small car? You never saw me claim anything even remotely resembling that idea. This is usually where you vanish. > > So you think everybody except you should be driving a small car? > > You never saw me claim anything even remotely resembling that idea. > > This is usually where you vanish. Aren't you the one with the boat that was going to take me for a one-way fishing trip? You have a pickup truck to haul the thing around with? So what are you going to do if what you say is true? Buy a small car? That won't tow your barge around, the little car will be overloaded. The a.s-end will be dragging the pavement with the hitch weight alone. Will you be selling your boat then? What will you then do with your spare time, gardening? Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" >> > So you think everybody except you should be driving a small car? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Will you be selling your boat then? What will you then do with your > spare time, gardening? Nothing you've written proves that I think everyone except me should be driving a small car. Your conclusion, as always, is defective but not surprising, considering your condition. > >> > So you think everybody except you should be driving a small car? > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > driving a small car. Your conclusion, as always, is defective but not > surprising, considering your condition. I asked you six questions and you answered none. You then wonder why we consider you not creditable. Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" >> >> > So you think everybody except you should be driving a small car? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I asked you six questions and you answered none. You then wonder why we > consider you not creditable. I ignored your questions because they have nothing to do with the subject, which is that Detroit has a long history of offering lousy choices to customers, which is why those companies are up to their noses in a cesspool. Obviously (to any sentient, sober and non-hysterical adult), someone who needs to tow something regularly will need a vehicle which can do the job. But most SUV owners tow nothing. > >> >> > So you think everybody except you should be driving a small car? > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > needs to tow something regularly will need a vehicle which can do the job. > But most SUV owners tow nothing. That's true and most pickup drivers have little in the box except a few empty beer cans. Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" > My mechanic has an interesting theory: GM & Ford forgot to do their market > research BEFORE designing their best-selling SUVs. They never figured out [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hogs, which would've make at least an incremental improvement in their fleet > mileage numbers. Ironically, by selling more 2WD SUVs the car companies would have been able to sell more SUVs and not have to sell as many far less profitable small cars, and still meet the CAFE standard. OTOH the sales of minivans, which tend to get better fuel economy than large SUVs, have fallen greatly in the past few years, so much that GM and Ford abandoned them. I have a feeling the new fuel economy standards will be relaxed or pushed back to 2020. >> My mechanic has an interesting theory: GM & Ford forgot to do their >> market [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > able to sell more SUVs and not have to sell as many far less > profitable small cars, and still meet the CAFE standard. The car makers probably figured that if they switched to 2WD (front drive), they'd lose the audience that needs to tow things. Naturally, this is a silly fear, since they could've made two separate models. Got a boat? Buy this one. No trailer in your future? You buy the other one. > OTOH the sales of minivans, which tend to get better fuel economy than > large SUVs, have fallen greatly in the past few years, so much that GM > and Ford abandoned them. Minivans lost their pizazz - what little they had to begin with. >> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=worldwide > > Good. If emissions rules hadn't been jammed down the throats of car makers > in the past, they never would've done anything on their own. It's time to > kick them in the balls again. And kick the average joe in the balls why we are at it. It's sure nice of Obama to expect Americans to pay to keep pollution low while China and India are continuing to do whatever they want to be productive. Just like Bill Clinton, Obama supports other countries more than he supports America. >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=worldwide >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bill Clinton, Obama supports other countries more than he supports > America. 1) Prove that improved emissions standards will cost customers more. It didn't work that way in the past. Prove that it will cost more now. 2) We have no control over what other countries do. If you disagree, explain how we can control how China or India deal with emissions. By the way, this might come as a surprise. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html On May 19, 9:34 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > "Scott in Florida" <Mov...@outa.here> wrote in messagenews:d0d515tb4g64cnotj4uh7phanbd4e8dc2l@4ax.com... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in the past, they never would've done anything on their own. It's time to > kick them in the balls again. Yeah, remember adding seat belts was going to bankrupt the car companies? Looks like those seat belts finally did in the car companies. Woe is us for not believeing them. Ed >On May 19, 9:34 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Ed Finally the Dims are in charge and Bambi is cashing in his political standing to ruin American car companies....AND charging all Americans with the bill....for GENERATIONS... SignatureScott in Florida > On Tue, 19 May 2009 11:20:56 -0700 (PDT), edspyhill01 > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - How can American car companies stay in business if Americans don't make enough at their minimum wage jobs to actually buy cars? It's the offshoring chickens come home to roost. > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=worldwi > de bump up the price of the average vehicle about $1500. Car companies like it somewhat because they don't have to work with eleven differnt states plus the federal government. So from that aspect, I guess it's good? Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the same time he does everything he can to ruin the free enterprise system, bankrupt our nation and emasculate our defenses while the rest of the world girds itself for all-out war - nuclear, economic, cyber and otherwise. Great job Bozama, keep those ideas rolling out... you have all the answers, even for the problems we haven't thought of yet. > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refe... > > -- > > Scott in Florida It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the same time he does everything he can to ruin the free enterprise system, bankrupt our nation and emasculate our defenses while the rest of the world girds itself for all-out war - nuclear, economic, cyber and otherwise. Great job Bozama, keep those ideas rolling out... you have all the answers, even for the problems we haven't thought of yet. ========================== Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. They'll adjust again. Without a kick in the balls, they will do absolutely nothing. >Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about >emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. Oh? Crapsler and GM are bankrupt..... Thanks Big Government....and Bambi.... SignatureScott in Florida >>Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about >>emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Scott in Florida Oh well. Lots of companies go bankrupt because they were run badly. That's business evolution. Survival of the fittest. >>>Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about >>>emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Oh well. Lots of companies go bankrupt because they were run badly. That's >business evolution. Survival of the fittest. Crapsler and GM are not failing because they are bad companies. They are failing because of the government....aka Bambi. SignatureScott in Florida >>>>Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about >>>>emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > They are failing because of the government....aka Bambi. You're off your meds again. You're saying Obama is an automobile designer, and his mistakes wrecked GM & Chrysler. > >>>>Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about > >>>>emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You're off your meds again. You're saying Obama is an automobile designer, > and his mistakes wrecked GM & Chrysler. Well...isn't he? And didn't he? If not, why not? You still owe me answers to 33 questions I've presented to you. Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" >>>>>Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about >>>>>emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >You're off your meds again. You're saying Obama is an automobile designer, >and his mistakes wrecked GM & Chrysler. Bambi seems to think so.... You voted for a loser... America is losing because of YOUR VOTE.... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained >>>>>>about [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bambi seems to think so.... No. YOU seem to think so, since you're blaming Obama for mistakes made by GM and Chrysler beginning in the 1970s. >>>>>>>Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained >>>>>>>about [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >No. YOU seem to think so, since you're blaming Obama for mistakes made by GM >and Chrysler beginning in the 1970s. Bambi should NOT be involved.... SignatureScott in Florida > It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and > propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Without a kick in the balls, they will do absolutely nothing. That's not true. If they just did it, people would buy the result. Nobody forced Apple to invent the iPod, but since Apple went through the motions, the iPod has propelled them to the best condition they have been in in a very long time. Then, add the spin-off products that Apple has created, not to mention the spin-offs that others have come up with, and we see an entire industry morphing from cassettes and CDs to electronic distribution. And, that's just the music side of the products. Consider video and communications. We don't need government to mandate better fuel economy, we only need car makers to provide it. People are clamoring to get better fuel economy and longer lasting cars and trucks. Obviously, there are people that don't care. They can pay for more gas if they want to. But if you care, you'll be motivated to buy anything that delivers 50mpg. If you get choices at the 50mpg economy class, odds say you'll go for the best looking and most versitile for your situation. Nobody needs the government to say, "you will build it or else." What we need is for companies to say (internally), "if we build it, they will come." > It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and > propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Without a kick in the balls, they will do absolutely nothing. This is absolutely correct. They always complain about this stuff, but they somehow are always able to implement the requirements without adding much, if anything, to the retail cost of a vehicle. >> It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and >> propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >they somehow are always able to implement the requirements without >adding much, if anything, to the retail cost of a vehicle. What has your boy Bambi done to the US car manufacturers...? SignatureScott in Florida >> It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and >> propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > they somehow are always able to implement the requirements without > adding much, if anything, to the retail cost of a vehicle. AHAHAHOHOHOHOH! SURE it didn't! My comment was directed toward BO's demonstrably ignorant proposition that raising the mileage standards will have a positive effect on global warming. With everything else he SHOULD be worrying about, he has no time to be a bad scientist. On May 19, 9:56 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > ========================== > > Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about > emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. They'll adjust again. > > Without a kick in the balls, they will do absolutely nothing. You won't answer this question, but besides global warming, are there any other reasons to reduce emissions and use less fuel? I'm really not interested in global warming, but I *am* interested in other reasons. My comment was directed toward BO's demonstrably ignorant proposition that raising the mileage standards will have a positive effect on global warming. With everything else he SHOULD be worrying about, he has no time to be a bad scientist. On May 19, 9:56 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > ========================== > > Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about > emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. They'll adjust again. > > Without a kick in the balls, they will do absolutely nothing. Of course there are. I'm not against using less fuel (in fact I actively support it), but I am against the government using bad science and our money to force anything on us. Our Great Leader needs to focus on his Constitutional priorities. On May 19, 12:08 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > You won't answer this question, but besides global warming, are there any > other reasons to reduce emissions and use less fuel? I'm really not > interested in global warming, but I *am* interested in other reasons. Forget bad science, then (global warming). Good science already gives us perfect reasons to reduce emissions (clean air), and use less fuel (supporting terrorists in the Middle East). It's our patriotic duty to stop supporting terrorists in the Middle East. Of course there are. I'm not against using less fuel (in fact I actively support it), but I am against the government using bad science and our money to force anything on us. Our Great Leader needs to focus on his Constitutional priorities. On May 19, 12:08 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > You won't answer this question, but besides global warming, are there any > other reasons to reduce emissions and use less fuel? I'm really not > interested in global warming, but I *am* interested in other reasons. > Forget bad science, then (global warming). Good science already gives us > perfect reasons to reduce emissions (clean air), and use less fuel > (supporting terrorists in the Middle East). It's our patriotic duty to > stop supporting terrorists in the Middle East. Then talk to your leftist buddies and allow us to pull oil from ANWR. Allow us to pull oil shale from Colorado. Allow us to get oil from California. Allow us to pave over vast expanses with wind and solar farms. Environmentalists prevent us from leveraging our own energy sources. NOT ENERGY, but in California, we are trying to build a desalination plant in San Diego County. San Diego imports 100% of its water from mainly two sources, the Colorado River and the Sacramento River Delta. Due to drought and court decisions, water deliveries here are dangerously low. Desalination can provide for much of our needs. ENVIRONMENTALISTS -- the same people that got the court decision that caused deliveries of water to be cut -- are trying to block desalination at a time when they also block taking water from the Colorado and Sacramento rivers. These same people block wind energy farms and solar farms and nuke plants, forcing a dependence existing energy generation -- basically oil and gas fired plants. So, if you want to express your patriotic duty, then fine, but express it boldly and move toward energy independence, not force energy dependence because of some obscure snail or frog or tiny fish. > Of course there are. I'm not against using less fuel (in fact I > actively support it), but I am against the government using bad [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> other reasons to reduce emissions and use less fuel? I'm really not >> interested in global warming, but I *am* interested in other reasons. >> Forget bad science, then (global warming). Good science already gives us >> perfect reasons to reduce emissions (clean air), and use less fuel [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Environmentalists prevent us from leveraging our own energy sources. More exploration is just one of many ideas which must be used together. And last time I read anything authoritative about ANWR, it said ANWR's contribution would be miniscule. I doubted the information until I noticed that the person in the article *****WORKED FOR EXXON******* > ENVIRONMENTALISTS -- the same people that > got the court decision that caused deliveries of water to be cut -- are > trying to block desalination at a time when they also block taking water > from the Colorado and Sacramento rivers. These same people block wind energy Are you saying they're Block Heads? We have a similar crop of morons out on the East Coast. Many times have I mentioned the morons on the town common with "We need wind power NOW!" and when a company came to look at the area and found a perfect spot they turned into NIMBYs. Or COVEs (Citizens Opposed to Virtually Everything) > Environmentalists prevent us from leveraging our own energy sources. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > trying to block desalination at a time when they also block taking water > from the Colorado and Sacramento rivers. They're more like NIMBYs pretending to be environmentalists. Farther south on the Colorado River is a big reverse osmosis desalination plant that was built to keep the environment clean, by removing salt before the water reaches Mexico. >> Environmentalists prevent us from leveraging our own energy sources. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > desalination plant that was built to keep the environment clean, by > removing salt before the water reaches Mexico. I'm not sure, but I believe that plant was required by the Mexicans. They need fresh water from the river, but we were giving them salt water. I think we were actually giving them dirty water they could not use, and we had to clean the water for them. > It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and > propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Your head is stuck in the 1970s, when car makers first complained about > emissions standards. They adjusted just fine. They'll adjust again. I guess you don't remember the 70's very well. Emissions put a strain on performance and fuel economy because the technology wasn't there. It was mandated by the gvernment and nearly killed the US carmakers in the process. Now, it's history repeating. Only this time the car companies in the US aren't riding high thanks to the high sales of Muscle cars, and are on the brink already. This pushes them over, and Obama knows it. Guess you've forgotten about this http://www.nastyz28.com/2gcog/tech/smog2.jpg > Without a kick in the balls, they will do absolutely nothing. >> It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and >> propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the US aren't riding high thanks to the high sales of Muscle cars, > and are on the brink already. This pushes them over, and Obama knows it. Name five non-automotive industries and two companies within each of those industries (for a total of 10 company names) which you think should never EVER be allowed to go down the toilet, no matter how badly those companies are managed. >>> It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and >>> propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > EVER be allowed to go down the toilet, no matter how badly those companies > are managed. There is no such thing as a company that should never ever be allowed to go down the toilet. In a capitalist economy, companies can and do fail. It's a socialist economy where a company is "too big to fail." >>>> It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and >>>> propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > In a capitalist economy, companies can and do fail. It's a socialist economy > where a company is "too big to fail." Um, usually. However we're looking at a different, global economy. There are US businesses and indusrties that should not be allowed to fail. Capitalsim is good, and these companies should be held afloat in a capitalist method. I never said car companies should be held up, but what Nobraina is mandating is sure to kill the US car industry. This man is a Loose Cannon... >It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and >propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Great job Bozama, keep those ideas rolling out... you have all the >answers, even for the problems we haven't thought of yet. Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refe... >> >> -- >> >> Scott in Florida SignatureScott in Florida >>It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and >>propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bambi is the enemy of the American System. I thought you loved capitalism. Business failures are a natural part of the system. You must be a communist if you don't like the system. >> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. > > I thought you loved capitalism. Business failures are a natural part of > the system. You must be a communist if you don't like the system. But, business is now failing or surviving at the whim of the President. And you charged Bush with shredding the Constitution. Sheesh! >>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >> >> I thought you loved capitalism. Business failures are a natural part of >> the system. You must be a communist if you don't like the system. > > But, business is now failing or surviving at the whim of the President. They weren't up to their necks in sh.t BEFORE the election? >>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They weren't up to their necks in sh.t BEFORE the election? Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. The point is, the ultimate decision on the demise or survival is made by Obama. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL basis for the President of the United States to determine the outcome of the market. >>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > CONSTITUTIONAL basis for the President of the United States to determine > the outcome of the market. Business failures are about numbers. There is no "Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't". Make up your mind. What condition were GM & Chrysler in a year ago? Any decent web site which provides stock quotes will also offer financial reports. This discussion cannot continue until you do your homework and bring facts. >>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > provides stock quotes will also offer financial reports. This discussion > cannot continue until you do your homework and bring facts. There are so many ways we could be saving energy and reducing pollution. Something that comes to mind is having about 90% of the stop signs changed to yield signs. Coming to a complete stop when you are the only car at the intersection? Then moving the ton and half from a dead start? And what about a simple computer controlled drive by wire set to deliver 35 mpg? A light car could do 70 easy a SUV maybe 35 if there wasn't a headwind. > >>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > by wire set to deliver 35 mpg? A light car could do 70 easy a SUV > maybe 35 if there wasn't a headwind. Build more nuclear plants as per France. One of the few things they did right, which we should follow. More nuclear plants would free up all that oil and natural gas that's now burning to generate electricity, silly, foolish. Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" >>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > provides stock quotes will also offer financial reports. This discussion > cannot continue until you do your homework and bring facts. Actually, it can't continue until you pull your head out of your a.s. The topic is not about what causes failure or creates success, it's about the President playing Coroprate God and deciding which executives should keep their job and which should be fired, who should be repaid debt and investment, and who should get something for nothing. The United Auto Workers now has a controlling interest in Chrysler, but not a single dime invested in that interest. Those with piles upon piles of dimes invested are being forced to take losses of 8 dimes for every 10 they invested. Maybe I've over stated that, perhaps they only have to take losses of 7 dimes for every 10. Either way, the people with a financial stake in the success of the company have been thrown under the bus while the people with no stake are driving the bus off a cliff. Prove me wrong. I dare you. >>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > keep their job and which should be fired, who should be repaid debt and > investment, and who should get something for nothing. Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on board if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies themselves were not about to clean house properly. > Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on board > if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies themselves were > not about to clean house properly. And THAT my friend is what makes you a flaming Liberal. You just stated in a single thought the entire works of Karl Marx. Companies ALWAYS clean house. Always. >> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >> board if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies themselves [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Companies ALWAYS clean house. Always. Not fast enough sometimes. Bankruptcy and other ailments put a huge strain on parts suppliers. No way the worst executive offenders should retain their country club memberships when hard working people in other companies are losing their livelihoods. >>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>> board if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > their country club memberships when hard working people in other companies > are losing their livelihoods. Thank you Mr. Marx. >>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>> board if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thank you Mr. Marx. Ultimately, it's MY TAX MONEY that'll be spent because of the worst executive offenders. If not for bailouts, it'll be spent helping out hard working people who lost their livelihoods. I thought you wanted lower taxes. >>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>>> board if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I thought you wanted lower taxes. I do, which what makes you so wrong so much of the time. We can not have lower taxes AND Marxist policies at the same time. Marx and Low Taxes are mutually exclusive. The hardworking people that have lost their livelihoods would be far better off if government was not killing jobs at the fastest pace in the history of the country. >>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>>>> board if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > better off if government was not killing jobs at the fastest pace in the > history of the country. You should learn a bit more about Marxism before you go bantying about words you don't understand. Hire a private detective to help you find your public library. > We can not have lower taxes AND Marxist policies at the same time. > Marx and Low Taxes are mutually exclusive. The Soviet Union had very low tax rates, as does Russia now. OTOH many free countries have had very high tax rates. You need to reconcile some of your beliefs with reality. >> We can not have lower taxes AND Marxist policies at the same time. >> Marx and Low Taxes are mutually exclusive. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You need to reconcile some of your beliefs with reality. Russians (communists) also have low labor rates, so the heavy taxation comes before the wages are paid. >>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>> board if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies themselves [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > country club memberships when hard working people in other companies are > losing their livelihoods. Parts suppliers will make it up in the aftermarket, where they can sell their goods to people holding on to older cars a bit longer. >>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>> board if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Parts suppliers will make it up in the aftermarket, where they can sell > their goods to people holding on to older cars a bit longer. So you're OK with incompetent highly paid executives keeping their jobs. >>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>>> board if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > So you're OK with incompetent highly paid executives keeping their jobs. Wow. Where did I say that? >>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies themselves were not >about to clean house properly. If they were going to fail....WHY loan them so much money? Just let them fail.... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > if they've failed miserably at their jobs. The companies themselves were not > about to clean house properly. DIMWIT. IT'S NOT THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!! How dense ARE you?!?! >>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > How dense ARE you?!?! Whose job do you think it is? >>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Whose job do you think it is? Board of directors. Share holders. Investors. Other stake holders. BUT not the President. Not Congress. _Maybe_ a court during a bankrupcy settlement proceeding. Maybe, and even then the government is probably overstepping its bounds. Frankly, if there is a bankrupcy proceeding, the various creditors and investors should demand a change of both the executives and the board of directors. But even if such a change comes about during a bankrupcy, the question is, who drives such a change, the stake holders or the bench? When the government IS a major stake holder, then by all means it should demand a change at the top, but the point is, government has no business being a major stake holder. When government becomes a major stake holder, that's mistake #1, when it fires people, that's mistake #2. >>>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > being a major stake holder. When government becomes a major stake holder, > that's mistake #1, when it fires people, that's mistake #2. Board of directors. Share holders. Investors: All asleep since the mid 1970s. Can't be trusted to do the right thing. >>>>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > Board of directors. Share holders. Investors: All asleep since the mid > 1970s. Can't be trusted to do the right thing. Then YOU speak woth your wallet and don't buy their products. Your neighbor will catch on, and pretty soon the car company will catch on. Wait, that's were we are now, but the President stepped in with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars and the companies are poised to fail anyhow, meaning the tens of billions are flushed down the toilet. I spoke with my wallet long ago. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > I spoke with my wallet long ago. It'll be another decade or two before the "buy American even if it sucks" religion dies off. >> Then YOU speak woth your wallet and don't buy their products. Your >> neighbor will catch on, and pretty soon the car company will catch on. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It'll be another decade or two before the "buy American even if it sucks" > religion dies off. You're an idiot. Except for union members, that sentiment has been dead for a very long time. And union members are not allowed to believe anything other than Buy American. Obviously, there are exceptions. But, Buy American is hardly a religion anymore. It's not even a cult anymore. >>> Then YOU speak woth your wallet and don't buy their products. Your >>> neighbor will catch on, and pretty soon the car company will catch on. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Obviously, there are exceptions. But, Buy American is hardly a religion > anymore. It's not even a cult anymore. You'd be surprised. I know a handful of 50-60 yr olds who still bitch about what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor, and refuse to buy a Jap car as a result. >>>> Then YOU speak woth your wallet and don't buy their products. Your >>>> neighbor will catch on, and pretty soon the car company will catch on. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > about what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor, and refuse to buy a Jap car > as a result. Of course, but those buyers get a Volvo because it's a Ford property. They buy a Jag for the same reason. I can't think of any GM properties off the top of my head, but the mentality that says "don't buy Jap," would allow the purchase of lots of different products that are owned by American companies. So, those buyers can still buy American without buying American. They're good with it. >>>>> Then YOU speak woth your wallet and don't buy their products. Your >>>>> neighbor will catch on, and pretty soon the car company will catch on. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > top of my head, but the mentality that says "don't buy Jap," would allow the > purchase of lots of different products that are owned by American companies. SAAB. > So, those buyers can still buy American without buying American. They're > good with it. >>>>>> Then YOU speak woth your wallet and don't buy their products. Your >>>>>> neighbor will catch on, and pretty soon the car company will catch [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> So, those buyers can still buy American without buying American. They're >> good with it. They don't buy Volvos in the rural South because they think it a part of a woman's anatomy. Charles Grozny >>>>>>> Then YOU speak woth your wallet and don't buy their products. Your >>>>>>> neighbor will catch on, and pretty soon the car company will catch [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Charles Grozny I must disagree.... That would be a reason TO buy a Volvo..... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>> Then YOU speak woth your wallet and don't buy their products. Your >>>>>>> neighbor will catch on, and pretty soon the car company will catch [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Charles Grozny And Urethra is a black female singer... Ba-doom-cha! >>>> Then YOU speak woth your wallet and don't buy their products. Your >>>> neighbor will catch on, and pretty soon the car company will catch on. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor, and refuse to buy a Jap car as a >result. Bullshit. You know NO BODY that feels that way. Especially 50 or 60 year olds..... pssssssssssssssssssst 60 year olds were NOT alive when the japs bombed Pearl Harbour... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > Board of directors. Share holders. Investors: All asleep since the mid > 1970s. Can't be trusted to do the right thing. But NObraina is? AHAHAHAOHOHOHOHOH!!! >>>>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >Board of directors. Share holders. Investors: All asleep since the mid >1970s. Can't be trusted to do the right thing. IT SURE AS HELL IS NOT BAMBI'S BUSINESS...... You voted for this dolt.... SignatureScott in Florida >>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>> board [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > proceeding. Maybe, and even then the government is probably overstepping its > bounds. Yup. Presidents run countries, not companies. Liberals seem to have trouble with this. They seem to want the government running everything. The government is already way too far into the car companies, and Nobraina is sinking himself in up to the waist, and the Liberals sit there and say Oh, Goody! Not realizing, of course, what it means. >>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>>> board [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Not realizing, of course, what it means. The NSA runs companies, as does the CIA. Why not the president? >>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>>>> board [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > The NSA runs companies, as does the CIA. Why not the president? Not his job. If he wants to run GM or Chrysler, he should resign and go to work for GM or Chrysler. >>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>>>> board [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >The NSA runs companies, as does the CIA. Why not the president? You don't know that..... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>>>>> board [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > You don't know that..... Actually, yes I do. It's public information. >>>>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people on >>>>>>>> board [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Actually, yes I do. It's public information. cite time.... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people >>>>>>>>> on [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > cite time.... At least two books which you won't read. Here's one: http://www.amazon.com/Body-Secrets-Ultra-Secret-National-Security/dp/0385499078 You will now type LOL or some other stupid thing, and claim the book is not accurate. >>>>>>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people >>>>>>>>>> on [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > You will now type LOL or some other stupid thing, and claim the book is not > accurate. Probably a damn good reason why it's available for 50 cents... http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0385499078/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condit ion=used >>>>>>>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep >>>>>>>>>>> people [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0385499078/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condit ion=used There is a good reason, but it's got nothing to do with the veracity of the information it contains. You knew that, but you'll claim you don't because as always, you absolutely positively MUST WIN a debate, at least in your own mind. >>>>>>>>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep >>>>>>>>>>>> people [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > as always, you absolutely positively MUST WIN a debate, at least in your own > mind. What do you mean, "In my own mind"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! On Wed, 20 May 2009 17:12:55 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people >>>>>>>>>>> on [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0385499078/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condit ion=used but it is Joey's cite... ROFLMAO SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep people >>>>>>>>>> on [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >You will now type LOL or some other stupid thing, and claim the book is not >accurate. In other words...you have NO idea. SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>>>>> Somebody had to drop the hammer. There's no reason to keep >>>>>>>>>>> people [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > In other words...you have NO idea. In other words, you are three sheets to the wind, same as every night. >>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > keep their job and which should be fired, who should be repaid debt and > investment, and who should get something for nothing. MasterMind just doesn't understand this. He thinks it's good. > The United Auto Workers now has a controlling interest in Chrysler, but not > a single dime invested in that interest. Those with piles upon piles of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Prove me wrong. I dare you. >>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > MasterMind just doesn't understand this. He thinks it's good. If the president didn't put the screws to Detroit, who do you think was going to do it? For 30+ years, the shareholders have been too stupid to dump the deadwood. Loyal American car buyers are too stupid to walk away from suppliers who've been screwing them in the behind for 30+ years, although they woke up as of late. Who do you think was going to administer the medicine? Homer Simpson? >>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Who do you think was going to administer the medicine? Homer Simpson? Asking what can be done is one thing. Telling is another. This guy must drive finish nails with a sledge hammer. >>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Who do you think was going to administer the medicine? Homer Simpson? There you go again, Marx. The answer to almost everything is almost never government. As long as you are going to toot your horn for more government, you are going to be put down. GM and Chrysler were bound to have a company meeting where they had to proclaim, we're screwed. At that point, the guy that made the proclamation would bound to be fired. The boards would be fired as well. People like you that think everybody else is too stupid to notice are the problem here. American car companies are in trouble because they valued their real property far too high, then took out loans against that value. Now, they have debt to pay but no cash flow because nobody is out there buying a new car. The car makers have multi-billions of dollars in standing inventory that must move in order to pay the loans. Nobody is buying anybody's new car or truck, ask Toyota and Nissan and Honda. They'll all say that sales are off by wide margins. This is not about Chrysler or GM making stuff that nobody wants, it's about nobody wants anything and Chrysler and GM are in a poor position to wait for somebody to want something. >>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >Who do you think was going to administer the medicine? Homer Simpson? It is NOT the job of the government, fool...... We should have let the market decide, but your dolt HAD to try to take over. Look what happened............ SignatureScott in Florida On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:05:08 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Look what happened............ Seems to me I heard that somewhere else, too... Great minds... >>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > provides stock quotes will also offer financial reports. This discussion > cannot continue until you do your homework and bring facts. GM's 'stock' was in good shape a while ago, because the gains in the finance markets were offsetting the losses in the car markets. When the finance markets went to sh.t, GM's true colors shined through. But your Emperor is asking for too much right now. This *WILL* kill off the American car market. The Japanese will throttle back on US sales and concentrate on the rest of the world where realism rules, and come back strong with new technology when it's ready. >>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > concentrate on the rest of the world where realism rules, and come back > strong with new technology when it's ready. Good. Let him kill off the American car market if that's what it takes. Maybe a bunch of out-of-work engineers will find venture capital and start totally new things. Is there any other American business which you think should NOT DIE when it is run by incompetent people, or is the car business sacred to you? >>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Is there any other American business which you think should NOT DIE when it > is run by incompetent people, or is the car business sacred to you? Plenty of businesses should not be allowed to die off. >>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Plenty of businesses should not be allowed to die off. Name 10. You won't even name 1, but I'm asking just for fun. >>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Name 10. You won't even name 1, but I'm asking just for fun. Food. There's one. >>>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Food. There's one. Food what? Manufacturer? Wholesaler? Retailer? Name an example, using the name of the company. >>>>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Name an example, using the name of the company. ADM. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > ADM. And why should ADM never be allowed to collapse??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > And why should ADM never be allowed to collapse??? Too big to fail. >>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And you charged Bush with shredding the Constitution. Sheesh! He doesn't understand how Obama is gutting the Constitution. He's still in The Trance. Subtleties escape him. >>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > He doesn't understand how Obama is gutting the Constitution. He's still in > The Trance. Subtleties escape him. Obviously, you don't understand how he's gutting the constitution, or you'd be able to provide one example. I wonder how many more days it'll take for you to answer the question. >>>>> Bambi is the enemy of the American System. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > be able to provide one example. I wonder how many more days it'll take for > you to answer the question. I'm wondering how the hell long it's going to take for you to wake up. >>>It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and >>>propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I thought you loved capitalism. Business failures are a natural part of the >system. You must be a communist if you don't like the system. What your boy Bambi is doing is a TOTAL war on capitalism.... SignatureScott in Florida On Tue, 19 May 2009 11:12:36 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: >>It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and >>propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>> >>> Scott in Florida BTW, where the fu@k have you been? On Tue, 19 May 2009 17:42:17 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >On Tue, 19 May 2009 11:12:36 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >BTW, where the fu@k have you been? On the other side of the state. SignatureScott in Florida On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:07:39 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: > On Tue, 19 May 2009 17:42:17 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > On the other side of the state. Oh. Jeeze, leave a note when you go, eh? On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:51:12 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:07:39 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Oh. Jeeze, leave a note when you go, eh? You guys kept the fools pretty busy. Great job... SignatureScott in Florida On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:42:43 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: > On Tue, 19 May 2009 22:51:12 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > You guys kept the fools pretty busy. Great job... It's kinda like dangling yarn in front of a kitten. Or, to be more modern about it, aiming a laser pointer at the floor... On Wed, 20 May 2009 17:11:43 -0400, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote: >On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:42:43 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >It's kinda like dangling yarn in front of a kitten. >Or, to be more modern about it, aiming a laser pointer at the floor... Gawd they are REALLY drinking the KooK Aid! SignatureScott in Florida On Wed, 20 May 2009 22:12:21 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: >>>>>>BTW, where the fu@k have you been? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Gawd they are REALLY drinking the KooK Aid! Fu@king UNbeLIEVable! This guy's going to walk all over everyone, and these bobbleheads are CHEERING!!!! It's like someone dropped a Stupid bomb on the country. Luckily, some of us must have been somewhere immune. Scott in Florida wrote: > Bambi is the enemy of the American System. You're the enemy of the American System, God, and All That Is Good. On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: > It's great to see that our Great Leader has time to deeply study and > propose solutions to non-existent fairy tale problems, while at the > same time he does everything he can to ruin the free enterprise > system, bankrupt our nation and emasculate our defenses while the rest > of the world girds itself for all-out war - nuclear, economic, cyber > and otherwise. The problem is for real. Even though I say the Earth is not going to fry because of "Global Warming", we still need to clean up. Setting unrealistic goals is the general realm of the Democrat lefties. The carmakers will go bankrupt making (er, TRYING to make) cars no one will want to buy until the technology meets the mandates. Look for more Japanese cars in your neighborhood. > Great job Bozama, keep those ideas rolling out... you have all the > answers, even for the problems we haven't thought of yet. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Scott in Florida > On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Look for more Japanese cars in your neighborhood. What do you believe is a realistic goal for Detroit, in terms of cleaner vehicles? >> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > What do you believe is a realistic goal for Detroit, in terms of cleaner > vehicles? Zero emissions. Asked and answered. Now, ask about TIMEFRAMES. >>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Asked and answered. Now, ask about TIMEFRAMES. OK. What time frame for zero emissions, and explain where you got your number from. >>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > OK. What time frame for zero emissions, and explain where you got your > number from. As soon as economically feasible. >>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > As soon as economically feasible. According to whom? >>>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > According to whom? The car companies, of course. >>>>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > The car companies, of course. Then it will never happen. >>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Then it will never happen. Really? Americans are screaming for Zero Emissions vehicles. Public Transportation has been looking for zero trucks and buses for 20-ish years. They sought out LPG or LNG engines long before anybody thought this could work. American consumers are driving the worldwide demand for hybrid, but they only accept hybrid because there is no viable Zero Emission alternative. Zeros would go over big, if anybody spent the time or money to develop it. We don't need the government to drive Zeros, we need the government to get the Hell out of the way so Zeros can be invested in and developed. >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > We don't need the government to drive Zeros, we need the government to get > the Hell out of the way so Zeros can be invested in and developed. Joe needs Obama to tell him what to do and think. >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > We don't need the government to drive Zeros, we need the government to get > the Hell out of the way so Zeros can be invested in and developed. 30 years ago, Americans were screaming for cars that didn't suck. GM, Ford & Chrysler didn't listen. Why should we expect them to listen now? >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >30 years ago, Americans were screaming for cars that didn't suck. GM, Ford & >Chrysler didn't listen. Why should we expect them to listen now? Because now the dolt you elected is in charge of the American car companies. ....and you fools WANT the same dolt to ration out your health care. SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > Scott in Florida You don't realize what you just said. I asked why the car companies should be expected to do something POSITIVE for a change. You said because Obama was in charge. Therefore, you expect Obama to have a POSITIVE effect on the American car industry. You're right. >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > was in charge. Therefore, you expect Obama to have a POSITIVE effect on the > American car industry. Not necessarily. Doing the 'Politically Correct' thing is not always the right thing. If Nobraina pulls this sh.t now it's going to be the end of the American car industry. Let them get on their feet first and then help them develop the technology necessary, not vice versa. > You're right. >> You don't realize what you just said. I asked why the car companies >> should [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > car industry. Let them get on their feet first and then help them develop > the technology necessary, not vice versa. Do you fix Dell desktops, or do you specialize only in laptops? >>> You don't realize what you just said. I asked why the car companies >>> should [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Do you fix Dell desktops, or do you specialize only in laptops? Yes. Servers and tape libraries, too. >>>> You don't realize what you just said. I asked why the car companies >>>> should [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Servers and tape libraries, too. If you're typical of Dell's tech staff, it does not inspire confidence. >>>>> You don't realize what you just said. I asked why the car companies >>>>> should [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > If you're typical of Dell's tech staff, it does not inspire confidence. I'm typical of myself. I do it right, and the customer is happy when I leave. Just because you don't take pride in what you do doesn't mean others follow suit. I've assembled EMUs (Spacesuits, not birds. Thought I'd clarify that for you), aircraft electronics and solenoids so small you had to have a low power scope to see them. This stuff is kid's stuff. Why, I bet even you could do it. Maybe even almost to the level you hold Dell staff to. BTW, most of the people *I* deal with at Dell are aces, experts in the field. I have nothing but praise for them, because if *I* get stuck, then I need someone who knows what they're talking about. They always come through. >>>>>> You don't realize what you just said. I asked why the car companies >>>>>> should [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I need someone who knows what they're talking about. They always come > through. No Bedroom Douggie wants a liberal working on his computer, rather than someone who knows how to fix it. . . . . I guess he expects a tech who will swill the Kook-Aide with him? Then Gary Burnmore ought to be a perfect match for him. More turds for the bowl of Kook-Aide punch. Charles Grozny >>>> Do you fix Dell desktops, or do you specialize only in laptops? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm typical of myself. I do it right, and the customer is happy when I > leave. Quick. Cite thirty-seven examples of satisfied customers. Provide notarized feedback from these customers without involving "bar talk" or external source material. These examples must involve a time span of at least the past five years or your sampling is tainted and unacceptable. Be prepared for an irrational analysis of this feedback involving an ever-increasingly high hurdle; no matter what you provide at a given point in time, the shifting requirements will be impossible to fulfill. You will now disagree. >>>>> Do you fix Dell desktops, or do you specialize only in laptops? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You will now disagree. Ok, Joe... You catch on QUICK! ;p >>>>> Do you fix Dell desktops, or do you specialize only in laptops? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >You will now disagree. ROFL..... Nailed Dougie again....... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>> You don't realize what you just said. I asked why the car companies >>>>>> should [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I need someone who knows what they're talking about. They always come > through. The conclusions you come to in discussions here tell me that you don't think in a linear enough fashion to be much of a computer tech. >> BTW, most of the people *I* deal with at Dell are aces, experts in the >> field. I have nothing but praise for them, because if *I* get stuck, then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The conclusions you come to in discussions here tell me that you don't think > in a linear enough fashion to be much of a computer tech. That's OK! The conclusions you draw, or, more accurately, the inability you seem to have coming to a conclusion, indicate to me you don't know sh.t from Shinola. Fact of the matter is, in the Northeast Territory, if I'm not in the #1 slot, I'm in the top 5. >>> BTW, most of the people *I* deal with at Dell are aces, experts in the >>> field. I have nothing but praise for them, because if *I* get stuck, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Fact of the matter is, in the Northeast Territory, if I'm not in the #1 > slot, I'm in the top 5. Best guesser on the team, eh? >>>> BTW, most of the people *I* deal with at Dell are aces, experts in the >>>> field. I have nothing but praise for them, because if *I* get stuck, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Best guesser on the team, eh? Some of us don't have to 'guess'. >>> If you're typical of Dell's tech staff, it does not inspire confidence. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The conclusions you come to in discussions here tell me that you don't think > in a linear enough fashion to be much of a computer tech. However, I will tell you the one conclusion I can draw. When the techs are dealing with your average, every-day caller, they do a swell job of diagnosing the problem, dispatching the parts and escalating the call to next-day closure. I think when they're dealing with someone who thinks he's one step higher then God, they have a little heartburn with it. Perhaps if you stepped off the high horse for a minute and realized you DON'T know everything about everything, you'd fare better. Even though I *DO* know everything about everything, I am at least still willing to listen to people who know more. Please, do NOT consider yourself to be a member of that group. >>>> If you're typical of Dell's tech staff, it does not inspire confidence. >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Please, do NOT consider yourself to be a member of that group. "Sir, you'll need to reinstall Windows to solve that problem." aaaahahahahaha!!!!!!! >>>>> If you're typical of Dell's tech staff, it does not inspire confidence. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > aaaahahahahaha!!!!!!! What was the problem? And, my typical response is, "But, I'm running Linux..." >>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 06:54:03 -0700, bogusmailmark wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Then it will never happen. If cars are not Zero emissions, or very close, within the next 10 years, nobody will buy them. You don't think Honda, Toyota and Subaru (already w/PZEV) will bring something to market in the next ten years, then you're sadly mistaken. They may even have them sooner. All the rest will jump on the bandwagon but fast. There are some people who would rather have performance over emissions, but there are a lot of new car buyers who would like to have a Zero emissions car, and they will rule. Let the market decide, not someone who shouldn't be commanding a rubber duck in a bathtub. On Tue, 19 May 2009 09:29:25 -0400, Scott in Florida wrote: > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agqPp0iSPbp4&refer=worldwide This meathead is out of his league. It's one thing to raise CAFE standards, and the participants are used to the dance: the government mandates xx MPG, the car companies say, that's too high and we aren't tooled for that now, and they settle on yy MPG. This is entirely different. Mandates on emissions are a swell idea, but right now pie-in-the-sky. Remember what happened in the early 70's when the EPA stepped in? Cars that were capable of 0-60 times of 6 seconds couldn't get out of their own way. So, the carmakers will step in to new technologies, ready or not, cars will suck again for a while and then gradually start to get better as the technology meets the demand, and we lose in the meantime, because the Japanese have gone from being the followers to the leaders. |
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
|
©2010 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.