| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Luna" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2004 10:33:19 PM |
| Object: |
Favorite Part of the Debate |
Can't decide.
Was it when Bush referred to Kerry as "Senator Kennedy"?
Or was it this little gem: Bush: If Kerry had been president, Saddam Hussein
would still be in power and the world would be a SAFER place.
Didn't hear any major Kerry faux pas but then again, I had to run an errand.
Jean
--
|\ _.-'~~""'~`'~)
/, ~-,__,,,.'~ ,-;;--''
|,4) ./ ' ; ;/'
'-~~;'@ ( ; ;
_.--'' _.-_..' .;.'
(,_..----''' (,..--''
.
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
13 Oct 2004 12:59:57 AM |
|
|
In message <qm1pm0lqq9pvmbde0e9tfbi0j2b67c5aq9@4ax.com>,
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett writes
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:02:37 +0100, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<(((*> In message <20041011160150.24357.00001739@mb-m16.aol.com>, Deminimii
<(((*> <deminimii@aol.com> writes
<(((*> >>Subject: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate
<(((*> >>From: waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett
<(((*> >>Date: 10/11/2004 12:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
<(((*> >>Message-id: <57mlm0tnqjlo24brbqqpadg94ngq9odcb6@4ax.com>
<(((*> >>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:43:33 GMT,
<(((*> >>(Waxwing) wrote:
<(((*> >>
<(((*> >>><(((*> Good grief, Saddam was not a nuclear threat when we invaded,
<(((*> >>><(((*> correct? That was the context of the second question.
<(((*> >>><(((*> Saddam can be a threat to a strategically vital region of
<(((*> >>><(((*> the US without being a nuclear threat.
<(((*> >>
<(((*> >>Logic is not her strong point.
<(((*> >
<(((*> >I see more of your brain has been eaten away by your unchecked
gastric acid
<(((*> >level.
<(((*>
<(((*> She's not very polite, either.
Spends too much time imagining things, too.
I think that's part of her medical condition.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
13 Oct 2004 11:03:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:38:05 -0400, waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:02:37 +0100, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<(((*> In message <20041011160150.24357.00001739@mb-m16.aol.com>, Deminimii
<(((*> <deminimii@aol.com> writes
<(((*> >>Subject: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate
<(((*> >>From: waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett
<(((*> >>Date: 10/11/2004 12:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
<(((*> >>Message-id: <57mlm0tnqjlo24brbqqpadg94ngq9odcb6@4ax.com>
<(((*> >>
<(((*> >>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:43:33 GMT,
<(((*> >>(Waxwing) wrote:
<(((*> >>
<(((*> >>><(((*> Good grief, Saddam was not a nuclear threat when we invaded,
<(((*> >>><(((*> correct? That was the context of the second question.
<(((*> >>><(((*> Saddam can be a threat to a strategically vital region of
<(((*> >>><(((*> the US without being a nuclear threat.
<(((*> >>
<(((*> >>Logic is not her strong point.
<(((*> >
<(((*> >I see more of your brain has been eaten away by your unchecked gastric acid
<(((*> >level.
<(((*>
<(((*> She's not very polite, either.
Spends too much time imagining things, too.
Well in all fairness she is arguing with the sort of people who say that if
it weren't for Republicans, Christopher Reeve would have walked again.
--
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live
at the expense of everybody else.
- Fredric Bastiat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
13 Oct 2004 02:37:37 PM |
|
|
In message <vckqm0dofp3q0vuths4a4la3utaho74546@4ax.com>, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:38:05 -0400, waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:02:37 +0100, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<(((*> In message <20041011160150.24357.00001739@mb-m16.aol.com>, Deminimii
<(((*> <deminimii@aol.com> writes
<(((*> >>Subject: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate
<(((*> >>From: waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett
<(((*> >>Date: 10/11/2004 12:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
<(((*> >>Message-id: <57mlm0tnqjlo24brbqqpadg94ngq9odcb6@4ax.com>
<(((*> >>
<(((*> >>On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:43:33 GMT,
<(((*> >>(Waxwing) wrote:
<(((*> >>
<(((*> >>><(((*> Good grief, Saddam was not a nuclear threat when we invaded,
<(((*> >>><(((*> correct? That was the context of the second question.
<(((*> >>><(((*> Saddam can be a threat to a strategically vital region of
<(((*> >>><(((*> the US without being a nuclear threat.
<(((*> >>
<(((*> >>Logic is not her strong point.
<(((*> >
<(((*> >I see more of your brain has been eaten away by your
unchecked gastric acid
<(((*> >level.
<(((*>
<(((*> She's not very polite, either.
Spends too much time imagining things, too.
Well in all fairness she is arguing with the sort of people who say that if
it weren't for Republicans, Christopher Reeve would have walked again.
You're getting very extreme these days, Droog. Something going on?
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
13 Oct 2004 03:52:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:37:37 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Well in all fairness she is arguing with the sort of people who say that if
it weren't for Republicans, Christopher Reeve would have walked again.
You're getting very extreme these days, Droog. Something going on?
I'm extreme? I'm not the one who suggested what I stated above.
Aside from that... well, as the election draws near I tend to get more and
more irritated with the lack of any real agreement on core values. It's
just a long parade of people wishing to rob their neighbors in one way or
another. Pretty sad.
The price of oil has got me shaking my head also. Dems and Repubs making
senseless arguments about the price of oil that have nothing to do with the
issue but are designed only to jab in a stick in the other's eye. Neither
side will admit the truth. We are continuing to hurt now because of the
loss of the gold standard. OPEC favors Euros for oil over dollars because
Euros are at least partially backed by gold.
Oh, and I'm becoming increasingly fearful that I will never get a chance to
go into space...
--
OVERWORK, n. A dangerous disorder affecting high public functionaries who
want to go fishing.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
13 Oct 2004 04:26:27 PM |
|
|
In message <jp4rm0hrocti5j6a3t2f04a7n8j438450r@4ax.com>, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:37:37 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Well in all fairness she is arguing with the sort of people who say that if
it weren't for Republicans, Christopher Reeve would have walked again.
You're getting very extreme these days, Droog. Something going on?
I'm extreme? I'm not the one who suggested what I stated above.
Someone said it here? One of the people in this thread? I don't remember
seeing it, but I don't read every post.
Aside from that... well, as the election draws near I tend to get more and
more irritated with the lack of any real agreement on core values. It's
just a long parade of people wishing to rob their neighbors in one way or
another. Pretty sad.
Over here, each party comes out with a manifesto of 'commitments' for if
it's elected. Then they fight about them. And over which of them is the
biggest wanker. Of course, we don't elect the Prime Minster directly,
which must make a difference.
The price of oil has got me shaking my head also. Dems and Repubs making
senseless arguments about the price of oil that have nothing to do with the
issue but are designed only to jab in a stick in the other's eye. Neither
side will admit the truth. We are continuing to hurt now because of the
loss of the gold standard. OPEC favors Euros for oil over dollars because
Euros are at least partially backed by gold.
I thought it was because the US dollar is so very weak, compared to the
Euro. There was a time when things were priced in sterling, but the
world grew out of it.
Oh, and I'm becoming increasingly fearful that I will never get a chance to
go into space...
I gave up on that even before the depression hit. And now, who'd send a
loonie into space?
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
13 Oct 2004 06:39:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:26:27 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <jp4rm0hrocti5j6a3t2f04a7n8j438450r@4ax.com>, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:37:37 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Well in all fairness she is arguing with the sort of people who say that if
it weren't for Republicans, Christopher Reeve would have walked again.
You're getting very extreme these days, Droog. Something going on?
I'm extreme? I'm not the one who suggested what I stated above.
Someone said it here? One of the people in this thread? I don't remember
seeing it, but I don't read every post.
.... the sort of people.... I'm sure you understand.
The price of oil has got me shaking my head also. Dems and Repubs making
senseless arguments about the price of oil that have nothing to do with the
issue but are designed only to jab in a stick in the other's eye. Neither
side will admit the truth. We are continuing to hurt now because of the
loss of the gold standard. OPEC favors Euros for oil over dollars because
Euros are at least partially backed by gold.
I thought it was because the US dollar is so very weak, compared to the
Euro. There was a time when things were priced in sterling, but the
world grew out of it.
I wouldn't say the world grew out of it. I'd say that people in positions
of great power conspired to steal the wealth of the average person by
taking their silver or gold and replacing it with worthless paper.
Oh, and I'm becoming increasingly fearful that I will never get a chance to
go into space...
I gave up on that even before the depression hit. And now, who'd send a
loonie into space?
You have to send loonies into space to get them back home to Luna.
--
LANGUAGE, n. The music with which we charm the serpents guarding
another's treasure.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
13 Oct 2004 09:33:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:39:12 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:26:27 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <jp4rm0hrocti5j6a3t2f04a7n8j438450r@4ax.com>, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:37:37 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
Well in all fairness she is arguing with the sort of people who say that if
it weren't for Republicans, Christopher Reeve would have walked again.
You're getting very extreme these days, Droog. Something going on?
I'm extreme? I'm not the one who suggested what I stated above.
Someone said it here? One of the people in this thread? I don't remember
seeing it, but I don't read every post.
... the sort of people.... I'm sure you understand.
uh. Didn't Edwards say this?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
13 Oct 2004 06:48:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:52:17 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
<(((*> Aside from that... well, as the election draws near I tend to get more and
<(((*> more irritated with the lack of any real agreement on core values. It's
<(((*> just a long parade of people wishing to rob their neighbors in one way or
<(((*> another. Pretty sad.
What bugs the ***** out of me, vis-a-vis the US election, is that
I really don't see much policy being promoted by either party.
Policy, you know, the stuff that determines how you deal with
those pesky issues that arise when you least expect them.
I would like to see some substantive debate on the issues, rather
than name-calling and *****-waving. I don't care which
presidential candidate has the biggest wang (although the White
House interns might). I care which one has thought through what
he plans to do during his incumbency.
<(((*> The price of oil has got me shaking my head also. Dems and Repubs making
<(((*> senseless arguments about the price of oil that have nothing to do with the
<(((*> issue but are designed only to jab in a stick in the other's eye. Neither
<(((*> side will admit the truth. We are continuing to hurt now because of the
<(((*> loss of the gold standard. OPEC favors Euros for oil over dollars because
<(((*> Euros are at least partially backed by gold.
Well, actually, this is an example of the kind of thing I
complained about in my previous paragraph. Instead of fighting
about the price of oil, why aren't they looking for ways to
reduce the US's dependence on foreign oil?
Improved mileage for automobiles, increased funding for public
transportation, additional monies for scientific research into
biofuels, that sort of thing.
<(((*> Oh, and I'm becoming increasingly fearful that I will never get a chance to
<(((*> go into space...
Vastly over-rated as an experience, I'll bet.
But still, now that a private consortium has succeeded in sending
someone to the edge of the atmosphere and bringing him back
alive, it seems to me that free enterprise will inevitably lead
to passenger flights to Mars.
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
14 Oct 2004 12:58:21 AM |
|
|
In message <74frm05hi50i70fqdtlb15nifpgr3smd77@4ax.com>,
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett writes
But still, now that a private consortium has succeeded in sending
someone to the edge of the atmosphere and bringing him back
alive, it seems to me that free enterprise will inevitably lead
to passenger flights to Mars.
They made it past the atmosphere, into space - that's what the
competition was. I can't remember how long - enough to get the cameras
whirring at least.
Richard Branson over here is intending to open a spaceline. He already
owns an airline, and a condom manufactury, so it's an obvious
progression.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
14 Oct 2004 07:07:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:58:21 +0100, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<(((*> In message <74frm05hi50i70fqdtlb15nifpgr3smd77@4ax.com>,
<(((*> waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett writes
<(((*>
<(((*> >But still, now that a private consortium has succeeded in sending
<(((*> >someone to the edge of the atmosphere and bringing him back
<(((*> >alive, it seems to me that free enterprise will inevitably lead
<(((*> >to passenger flights to Mars.
<(((*>
<(((*> They made it past the atmosphere, into space - that's what the
<(((*> competition was. I can't remember how long - enough to get the cameras
<(((*> whirring at least.
<(((*>
<(((*> Richard Branson over here is intending to open a spaceline. He already
<(((*> owns an airline, and a condom manufactury, so it's an obvious
<(((*> progression.
I wonder if his nickname is "*****".
It would be appropriate.
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
14 Oct 2004 11:47:20 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:58:21 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <74frm05hi50i70fqdtlb15nifpgr3smd77@4ax.com>,
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett writes
But still, now that a private consortium has succeeded in sending
someone to the edge of the atmosphere and bringing him back
alive, it seems to me that free enterprise will inevitably lead
to passenger flights to Mars.
They made it past the atmosphere, into space - that's what the
competition was. I can't remember how long - enough to get the cameras
whirring at least.
I think the specification for the flight was simply to beat the X-5.
Richard Branson over here is intending to open a spaceline. He already
owns an airline, and a condom manufactury, so it's an obvious
progression.
I think a lot of people will be saddened to find that zero-G sex is rather
difficult. No leverage.
--
BAROMETER, n. An ingenious instrument which indicates what kind of
weather we are having.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
15 Oct 2004 01:58:01 AM |
|
|
In message <g8btm0p0ui7lag2vg96gduimchbcqeuqgn@4ax.com>, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> writes
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:58:21 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <74frm05hi50i70fqdtlb15nifpgr3smd77@4ax.com>,
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett writes
But still, now that a private consortium has succeeded in sending
someone to the edge of the atmosphere and bringing him back
alive, it seems to me that free enterprise will inevitably lead
to passenger flights to Mars.
They made it past the atmosphere, into space - that's what the
competition was. I can't remember how long - enough to get the cameras
whirring at least.
I think the specification for the flight was simply to beat the X-5.
Richard Branson over here is intending to open a spaceline. He already
owns an airline, and a condom manufactury, so it's an obvious
progression.
I think a lot of people will be saddened to find that zero-G sex is rather
difficult. No leverage.
The five-mile high club?
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
15 Oct 2004 02:52:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:47:20 +0000, CyberDroog wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:58:21 +0100, Alan Harding
<Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <74frm05hi50i70fqdtlb15nifpgr3smd77@4ax.com>,
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett writes
But still, now that a private consortium has succeeded in sending
someone to the edge of the atmosphere and bringing him back alive, it
seems to me that free enterprise will inevitably lead to passenger
flights to Mars.
A seat of the pants ride to the edge of the atmosphere and a 235 million
mile jaunt out to Mars are hardly comparible.
....at this point all advances in technology can be said to bring us closer
to Mars.
For instance (90 days to Mars):
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/at23.html
I think a lot of people will be saddened to find that zero-G sex is
rather difficult. No leverage.
Isometrics and bungie cords.
--
i.m.
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=^.^=" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
15 Oct 2004 09:37:00 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:52:24 -0500, "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now>
wrote:
A seat of the pants ride to the edge of the atmosphere and a 235 million
mile jaunt out to Mars are hardly comparible.
yeah. the piles of poop get larger
...at this point all advances in technology can be said to bring us =
closer
to Mars.
For instance (90 days to Mars):
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/at23.html
the advances on the NERVA-style engines have been decent since
the first one fired, and immediately blew-up. necessary runtimes
have been attained, and a few good candidates are running. I like
the light-bulb one, where the propellant and the fissioning fuel
doesn't come into contact. plus methane propellant can be made
on the surface, robotically, if water can be found for the hydrogen
earliest window is 2016, unless someone pushes-thru an antiproton
catalyzed hot-fusion design, which makes the petrodollar a dinosaur
and kills-off further sucking on the fission titty (Exxon Nuclear)
oh. this technology was feasable 20 years ago, and included domestic
power generation modular units, so a plant could be scaled-up fast
....hence, no power shortage in California, and lotsa yummy salmon
they drained the lakes up here to send overpriced juice to Ca.
fuckasses. they are gonna rot in hell soon...
I think a lot of people will be saddened to find that zero-G sex is
rather difficult. No leverage.
Isometrics and bungie cords.
never had any problem in the open ocean...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
14 Oct 2004 11:44:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:48:45 -0400, waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:52:17 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
<(((*> Aside from that... well, as the election draws near I tend to get more and
<(((*> more irritated with the lack of any real agreement on core values. It's
<(((*> just a long parade of people wishing to rob their neighbors in one way or
<(((*> another. Pretty sad.
What bugs the ***** out of me, vis-a-vis the US election, is that
I really don't see much policy being promoted by either party.
Policy, you know, the stuff that determines how you deal with
those pesky issues that arise when you least expect them.
I have found more than a few people getting tired of the "I have a plan"
mantra being followed by "Next question?"
<(((*> The price of oil has got me shaking my head also. Dems and Repubs making
<(((*> senseless arguments about the price of oil that have nothing to do with the
<(((*> issue but are designed only to jab in a stick in the other's eye. Neither
<(((*> side will admit the truth. We are continuing to hurt now because of the
<(((*> loss of the gold standard. OPEC favors Euros for oil over dollars because
<(((*> Euros are at least partially backed by gold.
Well, actually, this is an example of the kind of thing I
complained about in my previous paragraph. Instead of fighting
about the price of oil, why aren't they looking for ways to
reduce the US's dependence on foreign oil?
I have always wondered that, especially when it comes to those most against
the use of fossil fuels. There are literally billions of dollars waiting
for the people who come up with something as cheap and efficient as oil.
Even making oil go further will be a windfall. The auto maker who first
markets a 100 MPG car, with quality and cost comparable to the average car,
will sweep the market.
Lastly... screw the caribou... we should be drilling for oil on our own
land.
<(((*> Oh, and I'm becoming increasingly fearful that I will never get a chance to
<(((*> go into space...
Vastly over-rated as an experience, I'll bet.
But still, now that a private consortium has succeeded in sending
someone to the edge of the atmosphere and bringing him back
alive, it seems to me that free enterprise will inevitably lead
to passenger flights to Mars.
It isn't over-rated according to the people who have been there. But then
I suppose once it's a common experience there won't be much to it.
--
DISCRIMINATE, v.i. To note the particulars in which one person or thing
is, if possible, more objectionable than another.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
17 Oct 2004 08:21:36 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Even making oil go further will be a windfall. The auto maker who first
markets a 100 MPG car, with quality and cost comparable to the average car,
will sweep the market.
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
18 Oct 2004 12:36:47 AM |
|
|
In message <2tf9pmF1tvl81U1@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Even making oil go further will be a windfall. The auto maker who first
markets a 100 MPG car, with quality and cost comparable to the average car,
will sweep the market.
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
If I've got the conversions right, our petrol is about $5 per US gallon.
Sales of SUVs are increasing enough to worry people. Extra taxes on them
are being debated.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
19 Oct 2004 01:23:26 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2tf9pmF1tvl81U1@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Even making oil go further will be a windfall. The auto maker who first
markets a 100 MPG car, with quality and cost comparable to the average car,
will sweep the market.
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
If I've got the conversions right, our petrol is about $5 per US gallon.
Sales of SUVs are increasing enough to worry people.
Somehow I doubt that 50% of all cars sold in the UK
are SUVs which make just 10-20 miles/US gallon.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
19 Oct 2004 05:15:31 PM |
|
|
In message <2tl9bmF21id5eU2@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2tf9pmF1tvl81U1@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Even making oil go further will be a windfall. The auto maker who first
markets a 100 MPG car, with quality and cost comparable to the
average car,
will sweep the market.
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
If I've got the conversions right, our petrol is about $5 per US gallon.
Sales of SUVs are increasing enough to worry people.
Somehow I doubt that 50% of all cars sold in the UK
are SUVs which make just 10-20 miles/US gallon.
Penetration is nowhere near that level, and we're worried already.
I don't know if they use different engines here, but even the biggest
engined Toyota Land Cruiser has better figures than that. We don't get
many American vehicles here.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 12:48:36 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2tl9bmF21id5eU2@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
If I've got the conversions right, our petrol is about $5 per US gallon.
Sales of SUVs are increasing enough to worry people.
Somehow I doubt that 50% of all cars sold in the UK
are SUVs which make just 10-20 miles/US gallon.
Penetration is nowhere near that level, and we're worried already.
I don't know if they use different engines here, but even the biggest
engined Toyota Land Cruiser has better figures than that. We don't get
many American vehicles here.
Except for those cars produced in Europe, US cars
don't show up in the top 20 of cars sold in Germany either.
Reasons are a combination of poor quality and and low mileage.
About 30 mpg is whats considered barely acceptable over here.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 02:20:45 AM |
|
|
In message <2tmctvF20v0bqU2@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2tl9bmF21id5eU2@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
If I've got the conversions right, our petrol is about $5 per US gallon.
Sales of SUVs are increasing enough to worry people.
Somehow I doubt that 50% of all cars sold in the UK
are SUVs which make just 10-20 miles/US gallon.
Penetration is nowhere near that level, and we're worried already.
I don't know if they use different engines here, but even the biggest
engined Toyota Land Cruiser has better figures than that. We don't get
many American vehicles here.
Except for those cars produced in Europe, US cars
don't show up in the top 20 of cars sold in Germany either.
My current car, and its predecessor, were both German made, American
owned, British badged.
Reasons are a combination of poor quality and and low mileage.
About 30 mpg is whats considered barely acceptable over here.
Unless it was a performance or luxury car (or an SUV) few people would
buy a car with that low a mileage, unless it was a second-hand bargain.
40mpg is more usual, which is 50mpg in US gallons.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 12:17:00 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2tmctvF20v0bqU2@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
Reasons are a combination of poor quality and and low mileage.
About 30 mpg is whats considered barely acceptable over here.
Unless it was a performance or luxury car (or an SUV) few people would
buy a car with that low a mileage, unless it was a second-hand bargain.
40mpg is more usual, which is 50mpg in US gallons.
UK gas prices are higher than german gas prices.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 01:16:20 PM |
|
|
In message <2tnkuaF22h9e4U1@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"Alan Harding" <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <2tmctvF20v0bqU2@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
Reasons are a combination of poor quality and and low mileage.
About 30 mpg is whats considered barely acceptable over here.
Unless it was a performance or luxury car (or an SUV) few people would
buy a car with that low a mileage, unless it was a second-hand bargain.
40mpg is more usual, which is 50mpg in US gallons.
UK gas prices are higher than german gas prices.
It's a long time since I've been there, but Italian fuel prices made
ours look cheap. There were cars there that were on sale in the UK, but
they had smaller engines than we could buy. I suppose somewhere there's
a list of typical prices across the EU.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 05:18:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:48:36 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
Except for those cars produced in Europe, US cars
don't show up in the top 20 of cars sold in Germany either.
Reasons are a combination of poor quality and and low mileage.
About 30 mpg is whats considered barely acceptable over here.
That always leaves me wondering why it is that I see so many parts built in
Canada, U.K., Germany, etc.
--
IMPIETY, n. Your irreverence toward my deity.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
21 Oct 2004 12:24:00 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:48:36 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
Except for those cars produced in Europe, US cars
don't show up in the top 20 of cars sold in Germany either.
Reasons are a combination of poor quality and and low mileage.
About 30 mpg is whats considered barely acceptable over here.
That always leaves me wondering why it is that I see so many parts built in
Canada, U.K., Germany, etc.
Now that the buck is close to a fair value, rather than at
80 US/cents per euro, US car manufacturer will probably
buy less parts from Germany. Also, even if its German, it
still might have been produced somewhere else.
Then, German quality no longer is what it once was.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
18 Oct 2004 03:03:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:21:36 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Even making oil go further will be a windfall. The auto maker who first
markets a 100 MPG car, with quality and cost comparable to the average car,
will sweep the market.
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
The price of gas doesn't account for the anemic sales of hybrid cars. Not
if we are to believe that half the people in the country are deeply
concerned about environmental issues, let alone price.
But then I recall seeing a Hummer with a "Vote for Kerry" bumper sticker on
it...
--
When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual
sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone
will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much
from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who
gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential
and calculating.
- Fredric Bastiat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
19 Oct 2004 08:48:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:03:20 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:21:36 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Even making oil go further will be a windfall. The auto maker who first
markets a 100 MPG car, with quality and cost comparable to the average car,
will sweep the market.
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
The price of gas doesn't account for the anemic sales of hybrid cars. Not
if we are to believe that half the people in the country are deeply
concerned about environmental issues, let alone price.
But then I recall seeing a Hummer with a "Vote for Kerry" bumper sticker on
it...
Part of the "anemic" sales for the hybrids can be attributed to
availability. My neighbors tried to buy one, were on a wait list for
6 months, were then told that the wait would be at least 3 more
months, and that the price had increased by $5K US.
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
.
|
|
|
| User: "audrey in velvet" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
19 Oct 2004 08:49:02 PM |
|
|
On 20/10/04 2:48 am, in article 0pgbn0lrqfosdbcggj2thku029gh1lhmu2@4ax.com,
"Charles" <ckraft@SPAMTRAPwest.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:03:20 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:21:36 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Even making oil go further will be a windfall. The auto maker who first
markets a 100 MPG car, with quality and cost comparable to the average car,
will sweep the market.
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
The price of gas doesn't account for the anemic sales of hybrid cars. Not
if we are to believe that half the people in the country are deeply
concerned about environmental issues, let alone price.
But then I recall seeing a Hummer with a "Vote for Kerry" bumper sticker on
it...
Part of the "anemic" sales for the hybrids can be attributed to
availability. My neighbors tried to buy one, were on a wait list for
6 months, were then told that the wait would be at least 3 more
months, and that the price had increased by $5K US.
were you in europe during this price increase? i think in the us the price
of hybrids have dramatically decreased. unless you want a mini...
audrey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 10:49:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:49:02 +0100, audrey in velvet
<memememememe@me.com> wrote:
On 20/10/04 2:48 am, in article 0pgbn0lrqfosdbcggj2thku029gh1lhmu2@4ax.com,
"Charles" <ckraft@SPAMTRAPwest.net> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:03:20 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:21:36 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Even making oil go further will be a windfall. The auto maker who first
markets a 100 MPG car, with quality and cost comparable to the average car,
will sweep the market.
If only customers would be willing to buy "average cars" rather
than SUVs or big limousines. The truth is that a current gas prize
of about $2/gallon in the US is not yet high enough to make
US car drivers really feel that gas can be expensive. Once you
have a gas price of $5/gallon, the existing 70 MPG cars will
have a lot of appeal to customers.
The price of gas doesn't account for the anemic sales of hybrid cars. Not
if we are to believe that half the people in the country are deeply
concerned about environmental issues, let alone price.
But then I recall seeing a Hummer with a "Vote for Kerry" bumper sticker on
it...
Part of the "anemic" sales for the hybrids can be attributed to
availability. My neighbors tried to buy one, were on a wait list for
6 months, were then told that the wait would be at least 3 more
months, and that the price had increased by $5K US.
were you in europe during this price increase? i think in the us the price
of hybrids have dramatically decreased. unless you want a mini...
audrey
No, southern California
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 05:18:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:48:40 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAPwest.net> wrote:
Part of the "anemic" sales for the hybrids can be attributed to
availability. My neighbors tried to buy one, were on a wait list for
6 months, were then told that the wait would be at least 3 more
months, and that the price had increased by $5K US.
Sure, there are some people that will really want them. And being new the
auto makers will have to gauge the market to get production set properly.
But as always, the auto makers will build and sell what people want. For
now most people value comfort, style, and power over all else.
--
ASPERSE, v.t. Maliciously to ascribe to another vicious actions which one
has not had the temptation and opportunity to commit.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
