| 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: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
19 Oct 2004 01:31:40 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"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? Lets say you drive 20,000 miles a year.
At a ridiculous 20 mpg at $2/gallon, thats $2,000 for
gas per year. Thats not enough to really bother people
who can afford to buy a new car.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
19 Oct 2004 08:01:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:31:40 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"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? Lets say you drive 20,000 miles a year.
At a ridiculous 20 mpg at $2/gallon, thats $2,000 for
gas per year. Thats not enough to really bother people
who can afford to buy a new car.
I think you missed the part about many of them *claiming* to be
environmentalists.
--
AMBITION, n. An overmastering desire to be vilified by enemies while
living and made ridiculous by friends when dead.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 12:58:08 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:31:40 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"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? Lets say you drive 20,000 miles a year.
At a ridiculous 20 mpg at $2/gallon, thats $2,000 for
gas per year. Thats not enough to really bother people
who can afford to buy a new car.
I think you missed the part about many of them *claiming* to be
environmentalists.
Mileage has little connection to the environment,
90% of the pollution a car causes are caused by
the car production chain. Ok, if you squeeze a million
miles out of a car, then things change.
But a real environmentalist does not buy
a car because even if he does not drive the car,
a lot of damage has already been done.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 08:03:58 AM |
|
|
In message <2tmctvF20v0bqU3@uni-berlin.de>, Thomas Dehn
<thomas-usenet@arcor.de> writes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:31:40 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"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? Lets say you drive 20,000 miles a year.
At a ridiculous 20 mpg at $2/gallon, thats $2,000 for
gas per year. Thats not enough to really bother people
who can afford to buy a new car.
I think you missed the part about many of them *claiming* to be
environmentalists.
Mileage has little connection to the environment,
90% of the pollution a car causes are caused by
the car production chain. Ok, if you squeeze a million
miles out of a car, then things change.
But a real environmentalist does not buy
a car because even if he does not drive the car,
a lot of damage has already been done.
Sounds like a good reason to buy second-hand. That and depreciation.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhonda Collins" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 07:12:28 PM |
|
|
How can you say mileage has no connection to the environment? The gas
mileage a car gets is directly related to CO2 emissions and global
warming. The more gas you burn, the more CO2, the more global
warming. So drive a car that gets great gas mileage, like a hybrid.
Or ride a bike.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 10:10:02 PM |
|
|
On 20 Oct 2004 17:12:28 -0700, (Rhonda
Collins) wrote:
How can you say mileage has no connection to the environment? The gas
mileage a car gets is directly related to CO2 emissions and global
warming. The more gas you burn, the more CO2, the more global
warming. So drive a car that gets great gas mileage, like a hybrid.
Or ride a bike.
There is no known connection between human produced CO2 and global warming.
The human production of CO2, as well as chlorinated chemicals, in mankind's
entire history, is insignificant when compared to volcanic eruptions.
Mankind's contribution to global warming in general is insignificant in the
grand scheme of things. That is considering the enormous natural
variations that we have evidence for, long before man even evolved.
But believing mankind is responsible for global warming does at least prove
that his capacity for hubris far exceeds any other animal nature has
created.
--
REBEL, n. A proponent of a new misrule who has failed to establish it.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
21 Oct 2004 12:25:37 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Rhonda Collins" <rhondacollins@aperiofilms.com> wrote:
How can you say mileage has no connection to the environment?
The gas mileage a car gets is directly related
to CO2 emissions and global warming.
All that CO_2 is still marginal compared to how much polution
is caused to produce the car.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 05:22:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:58:08 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
I think you missed the part about many of them *claiming* to be
environmentalists.
Mileage has little connection to the environment,
90% of the pollution a car causes are caused by
the car production chain. Ok, if you squeeze a million
miles out of a car, then things change.
But a real environmentalist does not buy
a car because even if he does not drive the car,
a lot of damage has already been done.
Well there you go. It shows there are even less true environmentalists
than I suggested.
Personally I don't think anyone living in a house built with even a single
stick of wood can be an environmentalist. They are either running free and
naked with the animals, or they are hypocrites.
--
MONDAY, n. In Christian countries, the day after the baseball game.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kerfoker" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
20 Oct 2004 07:36:03 AM |
|
|
Thomas Dehn wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:31:40 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"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? Lets say you drive 20,000 miles a year.
At a ridiculous 20 mpg at $2/gallon, thats $2,000 for
gas per year. Thats not enough to really bother people
who can afford to buy a new car.
I think you missed the part about many of them *claiming* to be
environmentalists.
Mileage has little connection to the environment,
90% of the pollution a car causes are caused by
the car production chain. Ok, if you squeeze a million
miles out of a car, then things change.
But a real environmentalist does not buy
a car because even if he does not drive the car,
a lot of damage has already been done.
Thomas
Hey, that's me! I've only owned one car in my life: '69
VW Beetle since 1984!
-Fred
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
13 Oct 2004 06:38:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:03:33 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> 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.
I seriously doubt that statement.
Tara J. Ballance
Montreal, Canada
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
14 Oct 2004 01:02:11 AM |
|
|
In message <d2frm01ffi8kq3s9dv5i1akg9iv91repr1@4ax.com>,
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett writes
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:03:33 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> 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.
I seriously doubt that statement.
He'd have had to have lived for a few more decades, but research into
the uses of foetal stem cells is incredibly promising. Adult stem cells
do not have the properties that make foetal cells so promising, notably
the ability to grow into any type of cell.
America can import from the countries that make the products, if they're
allowed to by their fundies.
--
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 |
14 Oct 2004 11:50:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 07:02:11 +0100, Alan Harding <Alan@harding.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <d2frm01ffi8kq3s9dv5i1akg9iv91repr1@4ax.com>,
waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett writes
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:03:33 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> 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.
I seriously doubt that statement.
He'd have had to have lived for a few more decades, but research into
the uses of foetal stem cells is incredibly promising. Adult stem cells
do not have the properties that make foetal cells so promising, notably
the ability to grow into any type of cell.
America can import from the countries that make the products, if they're
allowed to by their fundies.
If other countries want to ignore the ethics of creating life for the
purpose of dismantling it, be my guest.
It's amazing to me that the same sort of people who object to experiments
on animals seem to be all in favor of experiments on human embryos.
--
PIETY, n. Reverence for the Supreme Being, based upon His supposed
resemblance to man.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
14 Oct 2004 11:25:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:38:36 -0400, waitingforgodot@samuel.beckett wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:03:33 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> 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.
I seriously doubt that statement.
Yes, I doubt he would have walked again also.
--
So the maples formed a union and demanded equal rights. The oaks are
just too greedy, we will make them give us light! Now there's no more oak
oppression for they passed a nobel law, and the trees are all kept equal by
hatchet, axe and saw.
- Neal Peart
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
11 Oct 2004 10:11:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:18:57 GMT, (Waxwing)
wrote:
intended for that purpose. The recent Duelfer report which
we paid roughly a billion dollars for concludes that Saddam
ended his nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War and that
even the ability to reconstitute it progressively decayed
over the past decade.
Interesting. Suddenly so many people have complete trust in government
reports...
--
LEARNING, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Waxwing" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
11 Oct 2004 11:43:36 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:11:14 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:18:57 GMT, (Waxwing)
wrote:
intended for that purpose. The recent Duelfer report which
we paid roughly a billion dollars for concludes that Saddam
ended his nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War and that
even the ability to reconstitute it progressively decayed
over the past decade.
Interesting. Suddenly so many people have complete trust in government
reports...
Statements against interest are always given greater weight
when evaluating evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
11 Oct 2004 12:24:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:43:36 GMT, (Waxwing)
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:11:14 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:18:57 GMT, (Waxwing)
wrote:
intended for that purpose. The recent Duelfer report which
we paid roughly a billion dollars for concludes that Saddam
ended his nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War and that
even the ability to reconstitute it progressively decayed
over the past decade.
Interesting. Suddenly so many people have complete trust in government
reports...
Statements against interest are always given greater weight
when evaluating evidence.
That doesn't make them any more prone to error. And let's not forget that
to be truly worthy conspiracy wackos, we must assume that Bush is in fact
the root of the apparent statements against interest.
--
Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you
didn't have a good answer to.
-Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
11 Oct 2004 03:08:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:41:22 GMT, (Waxwing)
wrote:
On 09 Oct 2004, (Deminimii) wrote:
my favorite part, hands down, was bush's "want some wood?"
bwahahaha
My favorite part was when Kerry referred to OB-Gyns as OG-Byn's. Bwahahahah!
Reminds me of the stump speech of Bush talking about high
insurance costs and he came out with this, "Too many good
docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't
able to practice their love with women all across this
country."
ouch!
ugh.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet, somehow, I'm considered far right wing...
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=printable_graph&X=2.75&Y=0.46
This, otoh, is an extremist:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/questionnaire.pl?page=printable_graph&X=-8.62&Y=-7.64
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
09 Oct 2004 01:51:03 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote:
Was it when Bush referred to Kerry as "Senator Kennedy"?
*lol*
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.
*ROTFLBTC*
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
09 Oct 2004 07:46:56 AM |
|
|
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:2spg6pF1nkf53U2@uni-berlin.de...
x-no-archive: yes
"Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote:
Was it when Bush referred to Kerry as "Senator Kennedy"?
*lol*
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.
*ROTFLBTC*
It was also cute when Bush talked about there being rumors about a draft "on the
internets".
I almost feel sorry for the apologists.
Jean
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Favorite Part of the Debate |
09 Oct 2004 09:44:21 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Luna" <jean_collins@hotmail.com> wrote:
It was also cute when Bush talked about there being rumors about a draft "on the
internets".
Bush's new slogan: "Its the stupidity, economic!"
Thomas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
