alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots?hl=enalt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Steelers are in a fix now - 16 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/6d3d138c44c12ca9?hl=en
* asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP - 8 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/a65082e69b099dde?hl=en
* OT July 4th - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/314962375fd8aec5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Steelers are in a fix now
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/6d3d138c44c12ca9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 10:16 am
From: "RickyBobby"
>>>
>>
>>The President does give a nice speech. I give him high marks for that.
>>And
>>he still has three years to go to accomplish something. If he can get our
>>troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan he will have done a good job. And then
>>we can elect him again.
>>
> Another satisfied Obammy welfare recipient chimes in.
Welfare recipient! That is funny.
I am just sort of an optimist and hope for the best. President Obama still
has three years for the economy to turn around and give up on fighting wars
over in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the surface I do not see why we fight wars
against countries that do not have a military. Do we expect them to attack
America with their Navies and Air Forces that do not exist? Would that be
anything like those weapons of mass destruction that we never could find in
Iraq in the first place?
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 10:19 am
From: "RickyBobby"
"* US *" <DumpObama@America.> wrote in message
news:4c2d01c5.641267343@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:49:15 -0700, Salad <salad@oilandvinegar.com>
> wrote:
>
>>RickyBobby wrote:
>>
>>>> There is no bigger failure than the kenyan fraud named Soetoro,
>>>> Obama, whatever you want to call the jerk. He's so dumb that a
>>>> white college boy has to tell him what to say using a
>>>> teleprompter.
>>>>
>>
>>It took a black man to show Republicans that a teleprompter can be an
>>effective tool in politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO46ii3W07U.
>
> Damn shame that he's not qualified to manage anything, let alone a
> superpower.
A Senator is qualified to run for President.
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 10:47 am
From: DumpObama@America. (ObamaNation=Abomination)
If President George W. Bush had been the first President that always
needed TelePrompters installed to be able to get through a Press
Conference, would you have laughed and said this is proof of how
inarticulate he is speaking on his own and is really controlled by
smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
Laura Bush on a 'Date' in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had devalued your retirement plan's investment in GM
stock by 90% and given the UAW unions a Majority Stake in GM and
Chrysler, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
Olympics kids, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown a
set of cheap incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given
him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England a little iPod
containing videos of his political speeches, would you have thought
this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emperor
of Japan and the Premier of Communist China would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
non-existent "Austrian Language," would you have brushed it off as a
minor slipup?
If George W. Bush had filled his Cabinet and circle of advisers with
people who cheat on their Income Taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco
de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican Ambassador when it was the 5th of
May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,
would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have
hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and "potatoe" as proof
of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned over 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go
plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a
hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One buzzing
low over millions of people followed by jet fighters in downtown
Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
they actually understand what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send Relief Aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than
in New Orleans after Katrina, would you want it made into a major
ongoing political issue with claims of Racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created high paid positions for dozens of
"Czars" who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate and
controlling much of what is happening to America, would you have
approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to DOUBLE the National Debt, which had
taken more than two Centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to DOUBLE the National Debt AGAIN
within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent more than All the Presidents combined
since George Washington, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Barack Hussein Obama that makes
him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything?
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 10:16:13 -0700, "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The President does give a nice speech. I give him high marks for that.
>>>And
>>>he still has three years to go to accomplish something. If he can get our
>>>troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan he will have done a good job. And then
>>>we can elect him again.
>>>
>> Another satisfied Obammy welfare recipient chimes in.
>
>Welfare recipient! That is funny.
>
>I am just sort of an optimist and hope for the best. President Obama still
>has three years for the economy to turn around and give up on fighting wars
>over in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the surface I do not see why we fight wars
>against countries that do not have a military. Do we expect them to attack
>America with their Navies and Air Forces that do not exist? Would that be
>anything like those weapons of mass destruction that we never could find in
>Iraq in the first place?
>
>
>
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 10:48 am
From: DumpObama@America. (ObamaNation=Abomination)
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 10:19:02 -0700, "RickyBobby" <nascar42@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>
>"* US *" <DumpObama@America.> wrote in message
>news:4c2d01c5.641267343@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:49:15 -0700, Salad <salad@oilandvinegar.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>RickyBobby wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There is no bigger failure than the kenyan fraud named Soetoro,
>>>>> Obama, whatever you want to call the jerk. He's so dumb that a
>>>>> white college boy has to tell him what to say using a
>>>>> teleprompter.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>It took a black man to show Republicans that a teleprompter can be an
>>>effective tool in politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO46ii3W07U.
>>
>> Damn shame that he's not qualified to manage anything, let alone a
>> superpower.
>
>A Senator is qualified to run for President.
>
Yup.
Even an incompetent one ... as we have seen.
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:21 pm
From: "Brian Allen"
> If President George W. Bush had been the first President that always
> needed TelePrompters installed to be able to get through a Press
> Conference, would you have laughed and said this is proof of how
> inarticulate he is speaking on his own and is really controlled by
> smarter men behind the scenes?
If Bush had an earphone in with somebody speaking the words to him, he
couldn't have articulated himself. He had zero communication skills.
> If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
> Laura Bush on a 'Date' in NYC, would you have approved?
As opposed to spending 9 of his first 12 months in office playing golf?
Please.
> If George W. Bush had devalued your retirement plan's investment in GM
> stock by 90% and given the UAW unions a Majority Stake in GM and
> Chrysler, would you have approved?
Anybody that had retirement plans hinging on Detroit needed a better
investment agent.
> If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
> Olympics kids, would you have approved?
I know, because who wants to come across as an actual human being on a
late-night talk show? Only people trying to bash the guy even noticed it.
It was a typical comment that any one of us have made 1000 times in our
lives.
> If George W. Bush had given Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown a
> set of cheap incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given
> him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have
> approved?
You're reaching. You're really bashing the guy for being a poor gift-giver?
Seriously?
> If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England a little iPod
> containing videos of his political speeches, would you have thought
> this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
Again with the gift-giving bashing. Next you'll be pissed because he gave
Aunt Sally a set of fridge magnets for Chrismas when he was five.
> If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emperor
> of Japan and the Premier of Communist China would you have approved?
Right, because who wants to treat foreign leaders with respect? We're
Americans, damn it! They should be shining our shoes!
> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
> non-existent "Austrian Language," would you have brushed it off as a
> minor slipup?
Yup. Now if one of them had thrown a shoe at him, then...
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:22 pm
From: "Brian Allen"
> Sending aid is not the same as having troops on the ground. Seem to
> recall that JFK sent special forces first as "advisors."
But it does show that the administration was invested in the country. And
yes, JFK sent the first American advisors in-country.
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:27 pm
From: DumpObama@America. (ObamaNation=Abomination)
Why Obamanomics Has Failed: Uncertainty about future taxes and
regulations is enemy No. 1 of economic growth.
The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and
unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers
talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of
avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are
responsible.
But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that
they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S.
was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to
call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.
The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth
measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate
tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began
about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and
it continued to expand above trend rates.
Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First,
administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the
longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the
administration and Congress have through their deeds and words
heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is
the enemy of investment and growth.
Most of the earlier spending was a very short-term response to
long-term problems. One piece financed temporary tax cuts. This was a
mistake, and ignores the role of expectations in the economy. Economic
theory predicts that temporary tax cuts have little effect on
spending. Unless tax cuts are expected to last, consumers save the
proceeds and pay down debt. Experience with past temporary tax
reductions, as in the Carter and first Bush presidencies, confirms
this outcome.
Another large part of the stimulus went to relieve state and local
governments of their budget deficits. Transferring a deficit from the
state to the federal government changes very little. Some teachers and
police got an additional year of employment, but their gain is
temporary. Any benefits to them must be balanced against the negative
effect of the increased public debt and the temporary nature of the
transfer.
The Obama economic team ignored past history. The two most successful
fiscal stimulus programs since World War II—under Kennedy-Johnson and
Reagan—took the form of permanent reductions in corporate and marginal
tax rates. Economist Arthur Okun, who had a major role in developing
the Kennedy-Johnson program, later analyzed the effect of individual
items. He concluded that corporate tax reduction was most effective.
Another defect of Obamanomics was that part of the increased spending
authorized by the 2009 stimulus bill was held back. Remember the
oft-repeated claim that the spending would go for "shovel ready"
projects? That didn't happen, though spending will flow more rapidly
now in an effort to lower unemployment and claim economic success
during the fall election campaign.
In his January 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama
recognized that the United States must increase exports. He was right,
but he has done little to help, either by encouraging investment to
increase productivity, or by supporting trade agreements, despite his
promise to the Koreans that he repeated in Toronto. Export earnings
are the only way to service our massive foreign borrowing. This should
be a high priority. Isn't anyone in the government thinking about the
future?
Mr. Obama has denied the cost burden on business from his health-care
program, but business is aware that it is likely to be large. How
large? That's part of the uncertainty that employers face if they hire
additional labor.
The president asks for cap and trade. That's more cost and more
uncertainty. Who will be forced to pay? What will it do to costs here
compared to foreign producers? We should not expect businesses to
invest in new, export-led growth when uncertainty about future costs
is so large.
Then there is Medicaid, the medical program for those with lower
incomes. In the past, states paid about half of the cost, and they are
responsible for 20% of the additional cost imposed by the program's
expansion. But almost all the states must balance their budgets, and
the new Medicaid spending mandated by ObamaCare comes at a time when
states face large deficits and even larger unfunded liabilities for
pensions. All this only adds to uncertainty about taxes and spending.
Other aspects of the Obama economic program are equally problematic.
The auto bailouts ran roughshod over the rule of law. Chrysler
bondholders were given short shrift in order to benefit the auto
workers union. By weakening the rule of law, the president opened the
way to great mischief and increased investors' and producers'
uncertainty. That's not the way to get more investment and employment.
Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate
businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable
opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that
route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by
creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and
it's harmful now.
In 1980, I had the privilege of advising Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher to ignore the demands of 360 British economists who made the
outrageous claim that Britain would never (yes, never) recover from
her decision to reduce government spending during a severe recession.
They wanted more spending. She responded with a speech promising to
stay with her tight budget. She kept a sustained focus on long-term
problems. Expectations about the economy's future improved, and the
recovery soon began.
That's what the U.S. needs now. Not major cuts in current spending,
but a credible plan showing that authorities will not wait for a
fiscal crisis but begin to act prudently and continue until deficits
disappear, and the debt is below 60% of GDP. Rep. Paul Ryan (R.,
Wisc.) offered a plan, but the administration and Congress ignored it.
The country does not need more of the same. Successful leaders give
the public reason to believe that they have a long-term program to
bring a better tomorrow. Let's plan our way out of our explosive
deficits and our hesitant and jobless recovery by reducing uncertainty
and encouraging growth.
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:21:20 -0400, "Brian Allen" <blah@blah.com>
wrote:
>> If President George W. Bush had been the first President that always
>> needed TelePrompters installed to be able to get through a Press
>> Conference, would you have laughed and said this is proof of how
>> inarticulate he is speaking on his own and is really controlled by
>> smarter men behind the scenes?
>
>If Bush had an earphone in with somebody speaking the words to him, he
>couldn't have articulated himself. He had zero communication skills.
>
>> If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
>> Laura Bush on a 'Date' in NYC, would you have approved?
>
>As opposed to spending 9 of his first 12 months in office playing golf?
>Please.
>
>> If George W. Bush had devalued your retirement plan's investment in GM
>> stock by 90% and given the UAW unions a Majority Stake in GM and
>> Chrysler, would you have approved?
>
>Anybody that had retirement plans hinging on Detroit needed a better
>investment agent.
>
>> If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
>> Olympics kids, would you have approved?
>
>I know, because who wants to come across as an actual human being on a
>late-night talk show? Only people trying to bash the guy even noticed it.
>It was a typical comment that any one of us have made 1000 times in our
>lives.
>
>> If George W. Bush had given Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown a
>> set of cheap incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given
>> him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have
>> approved?
>
>You're reaching. You're really bashing the guy for being a poor gift-giver?
>Seriously?
>
>> If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England a little iPod
>> containing videos of his political speeches, would you have thought
>> this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
>
>Again with the gift-giving bashing. Next you'll be pissed because he gave
>Aunt Sally a set of fridge magnets for Chrismas when he was five.
>
>> If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emperor
>> of Japan and the Premier of Communist China would you have approved?
>
>Right, because who wants to treat foreign leaders with respect? We're
>Americans, damn it! They should be shining our shoes!
>
>> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
>> non-existent "Austrian Language," would you have brushed it off as a
>> minor slipup?
>
>Yup. Now if one of them had thrown a shoe at him, then...
>
>
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:26 pm
From: "Brian Allen"
> Here's a crude but humorous take on today's teaching profession:
There are a lot of truths in that. The other teachers at my school couldn't
understand why I paid off all my debt within five years of my career
beginning. Options, people, options. I can pack up and leave whenever I
damn well please, and I make sure to let anybody that tries to railroad me
know it.
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:28 pm
From: DumpObama@America. (ObamaNation=Abomination)
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:22:38 -0400, "Brian Allen" <blah@blah.com>
wrote:
>> Sending aid is not the same as having troops on the ground. Seem to
>> recall that JFK sent special forces first as "advisors."
>
>But it does show that the administration was invested in the country. And
>yes, JFK sent the first American advisors in-country.
>
>
JFK's side began the aggression.
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:41 pm
From: "Brian Allen"
> Unless tax cuts are expected to last, consumers save the
> proceeds and pay down debt.
What a bitch that is! You mean I don't HAVE to owe Chase My Tail a fortune?
Fuck me I guess.
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:42 pm
From: "Brian Allen"
> JFK's side began the aggression.
By sending advisors or with the initial ground troops? VP Nixon was calling
for ground troops in 1954. It was a bi-partisan failure.
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:42 pm
From: "Brian Allen"
> Oh, I thought that you were talking about a specific segment of
> whites, i.e., rednecks. I've never seen their data isolated.
Sure you have. Check out red state data. ;-)
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:44 pm
From: DumpObama@America. (ObamaNation=Abomination)
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:42:28 -0400, "Brian Allen" <blah@blah.com>
wrote:
>> JFK's side began the aggression.
>
>By sending advisors or with the initial ground troops? VP Nixon was calling
>for ground troops in 1954. It was a bi-partisan failure.
>
>
Biden says all kinds of dumb things too.
Means nuthin'.
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:52 pm
From: AnAbsoluteTurdDwelleth@WhiteHouse.gov (Way Back Jack)
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:42:53 -0400, "Brian Allen" <blah@blah.com>
wrote:
>> Oh, I thought that you were talking about a specific segment of
>> whites, i.e., rednecks. I've never seen their data isolated.
>
>Sure you have. Check out red state data. ;-)
>
>
Hillbilly States down South are quite black.
Crime rates in N. Dak, Nebraska, Idaho that have large white
populations pale (by comparison no pun intended) to blue State crime
rates.
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 4:05 pm
From: "Brian Allen"
> Biden says all kinds of dumb things too.
>
> Means nuthin'.
So let me ask you a question, and I want an honest answer: has a Republican
ever made a mistake, and has a Democrat ever been successful? It's just not
as cut and dry as you seem to think it is!
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 4:07 pm
From: "Brian Allen"
> Crime rates in N. Dak, Nebraska, Idaho that have large white
> populations pale (by comparison no pun intended) to blue State crime
> rates.
Explain Huntington, West Virginia. Total white slum town in a red state.
Unhealthiest city in the country, as well.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: asshole, 30 yrs from now $7 a gal gas WILL BE CHEAP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/a65082e69b099dde?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 11:02 am
From: Larry G
On Jul 4, 12:32 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
>
>
>
>
> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 4, 10:58 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> >> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >re: recreation - are you talking about the Europeans who have 32hr
> >> >work weeks and take 6 weeks of vacation a year and still use 1/2 the
> >> >fuel that we do per capita?
>
> >> Yeah - I dunno how they use that time, tho. Recreation, esp.
> >> energy-intensive recreation? Remember they have good public
> >> transport, transport that we can't build because the population
> >> density here is too low to make it cheap enough for people to chooses
> >> to ride.
>
> >> >Do you think in the U.S. that the air conditioners in the South that
> >> >run 8 or 9 months a year use more energy per capita that the other
> >> >countries at the same latitude around the world?
>
> >> Yes, they use more energy. Similar-latitude people don't use that air
> >> conditioning. Is that a great way not to use energy? Want to live in
> >> Florida WITHOUT air conditioning? Me either. That's the choice that
> >> the envirowackos want us to make, tho - give up air conditioning, give
> >> up heating in northern homes. THey're idiots, of course. The south
> >> is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
> >> some sort of home heat. We used to use other fuels. Now its
> >> electricity, gas, and oil, mostly. Take those away, and the country
> >> will be denuded of forest, because people will chop down trees and
> >> burn those.
>
> >> >Do you think the other northern countries beyond Canada use more or
> >> >less energy per capita that U.S. folks who live well south of those
> >> >Countries?
>
> >> I think they use less - You see pix of the Scandenavians with their
> >> big sweaters on all the time. Dunno what temp they keep their places,
> >> or how well insulated their houses are. Here, we could do a lot with
> >> insulation, but not as much as if we used stone to build houses, which
> >> we mostly don't. A new constructon method - insulated concrete forms
> >> - is simulating building with stone like they do in some places in
> >> Europe, but its not required, and is more expensive. Mostly, if
> >> people can't get fuel to heat and cool, they're going to be miserable
> >> and/or die prematurely.
>
> >> >I don't think there is an easy way to wiggle out of this. The facts
> >> >are troublesome things sometimes.
>
> >> Yep. But we are good at manufacturing efficiency, and are using a lot
> >> of our energy for that, too.
>
> >> >We ARE more productive but if you measure us in terms or productivity
> >> >per energy unit - we are not so good.
>
> >> Takes a lot of energy to make steel, draw wire, lots of industrial
> >> processes. We are still a big manufacturer, and will be until the
> >> income tax chases ALL the industrial jobs overseas. Hey, I was
> >> watching a TV program on possible armageddon from a EMP attack, which
> >> would blow out many large electrical transformers. The program just
> >> casually mentioned that we don't make transformers like those in this
> >> country any more. That sucks. That's the stuff we need to turn
> >> around. The income taxes are strangling our heavy industry, and we
> >> need to get rid of them. We need industries like those, and it would
> >> seem to be something that should be easy to automate - build those
> >> transformers with even bigger machines, using people in the rare
> >> places where they're required. After that, expenses should be mostly
> >> from the taxes. Yeah, you have to do some things about pollution,
> >> too, but I think that is true in Europe and even Japan now.
>
> >> I wonder if we could impose a "pollution tax" on imports from places
> >> that don't do pollution control.
>
> >> >If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
> >> >we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
> >> >it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
> >> >higher?
>
> >> Dunno. We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
> >> right away. I don't think we want to go there.
>
> >> >Don't get me wrong - I'm not particularly sympathetic to the "we don't
> >> >like any kind of energy except solar" enviro-wackos... but OTOH -
> >> >their view that we are the most prolifigate consumers of energy in the
> >> >world by about twice as much per capita is true - right?
>
> >> I don't know how much more it is, but I think that most things we can
> >> do about it would result in immediate economic disaster. Those that
> >> wouldn't create an economic disaster, such as stopping air
> >> conditioning, would create hell on earth for a lot of people.
>
> >" The south
> >is hell without air conditioning, and the north is unlivable without
> >some sort of home heat. "
>
> >this is true around the world at those latitudes? How can other
> >countries not only live at those latitudes using less energy but have
> >longer life expectancies than us?
>
> I believe it has been a priority to build fuel efficient everything in
> Europe from the get-go. We, on the other hand, have historically had
> cheap energy. Therefore, we build our places without a lot of the
> energy-saving features found overseas. People in Medeterraean areas
> build with a lot of stone - ever go into an unheated / uncooled
> building that has no windows and is kept dark in the daytime on a hot
> day? Its cool. I noticed that working on some volunteer fire radios
> back in the 70's where the fire trucks were parked in a cement block
> fire station that was kept dark and didn't have windows. Walk inside,
> it was like air conditioning. Stuff like that.
>
> But now that energy is getting expensive, and we're also hosed
> economically, we don't have the money to do anything about our
> buildings that are energy inefficient, but we need to.
>
> >Do people at these other latitudes heat and cool 1000 square feet of
> >space per person like we do?
>
> I don't know what the size of their houses are.
>
> >If they heat/cool 1/2 the space per person that we do, does that mean
> >they use 1/2 the energy we do without dying from heat or cold but
> >instead being just as comfortable as we are?
>
> Well, means they live less pleasantly than we do, doesn't it? If I
> have to move from my 1700 sq. ft. house right now, to something that
> is 1000 sq. ft., then I'm going to have to shed a whale of a lot of my
> posessions. Some stuff can sit in an unheated / uncooled garage, but
> other stuff would just get sold - my garages are already pretty big,
> and making them bigger would be a bit over the top. And 1000 sq. ft.
> for the big screen TVs, having a master bedroom, a guest bedroom, and
> a den for the ham radio station (I made the mistake of putting the ham
> station out in the garage in an intermittantly heated space - I almost
> never use it for the hassle of getting the place up or down to a
> pleasant temperature, and then everything in it is either hot or
> cold-soaked, and that's no fun either) - and that would just be a
> sucky living situation for me.
>
> I'll build a house on retirement. I need to move somewhere close to
> things in order to attain the ages of 70, 80, 90 and not be somewhere
> out in the middle of nowhere, so if I can't drive for some reason, I
> can maybe walk, or maybe they'll be buses. I'm 20 mlles out of town
> now, and that's no place to be for a geezer. But anyway, its going to
> be insulated concrete forms for both survivablilty (we could get a
> hurricane here in Virginia) and for energy efficiency. Insulated
> concrete forms, and a heat pump for heat/cool, as well as tankless
> water heaters for that job, and I should be home free on paying big
> bux for energy if BHO gets away with his project to install
> cap-and-tax and multiply home electricity costs by maybe 7X.
>
> But right now, most people are hosed with respect to energy
> efficiency, and its too expensive to do something about it for them,
> too. Gradually, people may do what I'm going to to, and build with
> insulated concrete forms or some other really high-R construction, and
> things will very gradually get better.
so we have large size homes and suvs and we cannot afford to downsize
to become more energy efficient (just by virtue of using less
energy ..not buying more energy efficient)?
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 11:03 am
From: Larry G
On Jul 4, 12:35 pm, Otto Yamamoto <st...@yamamoto.cc> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:14:45 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
> > envirowackos
>
> What's wrong with wanting cleanliness and efficiency?
>
> --
> Otto Yamamoto
It's clearly un-American and not our god-given destiny.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 11:04 am
From: clouddreamer
Dave Head wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:33:13 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <Climate.is.changing@much.much.2.fast> wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2010 9:10 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>> <gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 5:06 pm, clouddreamer<Reuse.Recy...@Reduce.now> wrote:
>>>>> Dave Head wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
>>>>>> a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
>>>>>> to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
>>>>>> the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
>>>>>> But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
>>>>>> convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
>>>>>> building tanks...
>>>>> But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
>>>>> PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
>>>>> a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.
>>>> but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?
>>> Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
>>> diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again. The
>>> envirowackos of 5 separate states have set pollution controls on
>>> diesel cars so high they can't be met. So, only VW and Merceedes will
>>> import diesels just to sell 'em in 45 states. Of course California is
>>> one of the pinhead envirowacko states, so not selling them there is a
>>> big deal. If it wasn't for the envirowackos, we could be driving
>>> around in cars that get the 68 mpg that some of the European diesels
>>> get.
>> The ultimate goal is to get off all gas and diesel, not substitute one
>> for another. There is only so much oil left, and climate change aside,
>> we have to start moving to alternatives now.
>
> Yeah, that's the ultimate goal. There's plenty of oil - we haven't
> even started to attempt to use the shale oil we have out west, which
> is 3X the Saudi reserve.
>
> But the real key is the electrification of transportation, which we
> can do just as soon as somebody invents the magic battery that will
> hold about 10X the amount of a Li Ion battery does now. People have
> claimed at one time or another that they've done it, but then they
> disappear, never to be heard from again apparently.
>> Common sense. Not something from an enviro-"wacko."
>
> What's wacko about the enviros is trying to shut down or failing to
> promote the production of oil and gasoline before we have the magic
> battery. They act like they have no understanding of science
> whatsoever, and believe that if they interrupt the supply of oil, that
> somehow, somewhere, the solution to this mess will spring up. It will
> not. All that will happen will be the further economic destruction of
> America as the gas prices go thru the roof, and we have no alternative
> but to pay them. We can't afford $7 a gallon gas in a country almost
> 3000 miles wide and 1500 miles high. We'll just pauperize the vast
> majority of citizens.
>
>>> And my Subaru would get WAY better mileage and be way faster if it
>>> weighed 2000 lbs instead of 3000 lbs, but it has to be built like a
>>> tank in order to survive crashes. Those are the safety nazis at work,
>>> that won't let me buy the kind of car I want to buy.
>>
>> I wrote off my Impreza a couple months ago. That "tank" rolled over and
>> I walked away without a scratch.
>
> My strategy is not to crash. I've been successful at it since 1963.
> The key is being terrified of crashing, and paying attention to
> everything. The latter was greatly enhanced by my beginnings racing a
> go-kart when I was a kid. Lose focus when racing one of those, you
> end up with someone else's wheel in your lap.
My strategy as well and helped me for 25+ years, but there's always a
time when a set of circumstances are just perfect for even the most
careful driver. Where black ice is involved, all the focus in the world
won't do squat for you.
My insurance agreed 100%.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 11:06 am
From: Larry G
On Jul 4, 1:01 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 08:54:38 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>
> <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >" eo Metro? - 47 mpg. Howzzat for an around-town car? Try
> >finding something like that right now. But, it was very small"
>
> Yeah, but even that butt-ugly "Smart Car" is isn't that efficient - I
> had already downloaded last year's Fuel Economy Guide from the Feds
> and here's Smart:
>
> smart fortwo convertible automatic 33/41
> smart fortwo coupe automatic 33/41
>
> Not really outstanding for what you give up in space and styling. Why
> the hell did they make it so tall? Why not lay the driver down and
> cut frontal area? I just don't get it. I might buy it if it was the
> only car on the market.
>
> >otherwise known as a world car and the most common version of personal
> >transportation .
>
> Sorry to hear that. The rest of the world is aesthetically
> challenged, I'd say.
>
> >$7 gas and the recreation industry... hey... they have RV's in other
> >countries - they're the size and functionality of the VW Camper
> >though....
>
> And Americans will feel abused if they have to do that, and likely
> simply NOT do it. I sure wouldn't go anywhere long distance in a VW
> camper of old - dunno what they look like now - and don't forget
> Euopeans don't have as far to go generally as an American does when he
> hits the road.
>
> >why do they have trains and buses and we do not?
>
> We don't have the population density to support trains AND people
> would rather drive because they can get there just about as fast
> anyway. And its cheaper to drive, 'cuz we don't have the
> infrastructure in most destinations we might take the train to, so we
> have to rent a car just as soon as we step off the thing. Plus,
> riding the bus is usually a "poor people" thing and there's lots of
> criminals who mingle with the poor people, so you're less safe if
> you're riding a bus than if you're that driving.
>
> PLUS, if you try to take the train, when you drive to the station such
> as DC's Union Station, the PARKING is out the wazoo expensive. And
> the train is no cheaper than an airplane, BTW.
>
> >why do they not have to live far from work and we do?
>
> Maybe they don't have a lot of pinheads that believe in "zoning".
> Zoning is an egregious violation of property rights in my opinion, and
> should not exist. And, in this case, is actually harmful to our
> country.
>
>
>
> >and I love the reason given that because we are more crime-ridden, we
> >have to use more energy... now that's _some_ statement about a "more
> >productive" America...eh?
just FYI - the "smart for 2" is not world car of the Chevy Geo Class.
There are at least a dozen cars of that size that that are roughly
twice as efficient as the smart for two - which is a big zero in
countries that require more efficiency. Cars that get 50 mpg with a
SOLO driver inside are twice as efficieint as SUVs with one guy
inside ... right?
we're expensing twice the energy to do what - move tonnage?
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:12 pm
From: "bugo"
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
news:v07136ho8v28ui7q9hnoe5m2vgjsg8hoe0@4ax.com...
>>If the rest of the world used energy at the same per capita rate that
>>we do - how long would the world oil supplies last ? How long would
>>it be before the price of gasoline went to $5 or $10 a gallon or
>>higher?
>
> Dunno. We'd likely have to shut down our heavy industry to do better
> right away. I don't think we want to go there.
What heavy industry is left. So many jobs have been shipped to foreign
countries. It's sad how our leaders have sold the country out in the name
of corporate greed.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:16 pm
From: "bugo"
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
news:h2i036dkbjf1l1lg59876posal31lqn51c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:31:39 GMT, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article <cciv26trsutg0302kn4nc9h8ash7klm5ua@4ax.com>,
>>Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>><gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 3, 5:06 pm, clouddreamer <Reuse.Recy...@Reduce.now> wrote:
>>>>> Dave Head wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend
>>>>> > on
>>>>> > a few subjects like pollution and safety. I DON'T need a 3000 lb
>>>>> > car
>>>>> > to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. And,
>>>>> > the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
>>>>> > But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
>>>>> > convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather
>>>>> > than
>>>>> > building tanks...
>>>>>
>>>>> But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
>>>>> PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know
>>>>> of
>>>>> a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I
>>>>> do.
>>>>
>>>>but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?
>>>
>>>Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
>>>diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again.
>>
>>No, because diesel sucks. True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
>>even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.
>
> There's nothing wrong with diesels. The modern ones have been
> deoderized, and they're torque-y. They've been made to run fast, and
> win LeMans year after year, now. The winning of LeMans has been
> finagled by allowing them much greater displacement, but the point is
> that they can be made to run fast. And, if there are a few drawbacks
> hiding someplace, 68 mpg is worth putting up with them.
They stink, and they make awful sounds. Other than that they're fine.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:33 pm
From: ZZH770@yahoo.com
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 00:10:21 -0400, "Ray OHara"
<raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Oil is sold on an internationzal commodities market.
> the price is set by bidding and nothing else.
>like us, don't like us , domestic oil or foreign oil, it doesn't matter at
>all to the price of a barrel.
>
>OPEC would like to control prices and they tried in the 70s with the oil
>embargo and they failed.
>
But the lesson from the 70s is they could easily shut off the spigot
and force prices to go through the roof.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 5:08 pm
From: Clark F Morris
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 04:40:05 -0400, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 01:31:39 GMT, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article <cciv26trsutg0302kn4nc9h8ash7klm5ua@4ax.com>,
>>Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>><gross.larry@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 3, 5:06�pm, clouddreamer <Reuse.Recy...@Reduce.now> wrote:
>>>>> Dave Head wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > We could do a lot, if it wasn't for our gov't being 'round the bend on
>>>>> > a few subjects like pollution and safety. �I DON'T need a 3000 lb car
>>>>> > to go from point A to point B, but my Subaru WRX is that much. �And,
>>>>> > the Subaru has gotten the highest awards for safety that there are.
>>>>> > But they are tanks, compared to what is possible if we can just
>>>>> > convert to not having accidents as a strategy for safety, rather than
>>>>> > building tanks...
>>>>>
>>>>> But for the size of them, Subarus are very fuel efficient. My Forester
>>>>> PZEV gets under 10L/100 km (and emits less GHG than a hybrid). I know of
>>>>> a Ford Focus that can't get that gas mileage driving the same roads I do.
>>>>
>>>>but a Subaru would be a gas guzzler in Europe or Japan?
>>>
>>>Sure. Because it has a gas engine, for one thing. Those guys use
>>>diesel. Why don't we use diesel? Envirowackos again.
>>
>>No, because diesel sucks. True, envirowhackos have made diesel an
>>even harder sell recently, but diesel STILL sucks.
>
>There's nothing wrong with diesels. The modern ones have been
>deoderized, and they're torque-y. They've been made to run fast, and
>win LeMans year after year, now. The winning of LeMans has been
>finagled by allowing them much greater displacement, but the point is
>that they can be made to run fast. And, if there are a few drawbacks
>hiding someplace, 68 mpg is worth putting up with them.
While the particulate problem is vastly reduced with Euro IV and
whatever the USA EPA equivalent standard is, how does new diesel
compare with gas on nitric oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate
pollution. The latter is said to similar to asbestos in effect.
Clark Morris
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT July 4th
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/t/314962375fd8aec5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jul 4 2010 3:38 pm
From: NNH@gmail.com
Today is July 4th, a day when we celebrate our fight to win our rights
against King George.
It also marks the years 2000-2008 when we rushed to give all
those rights back to King George.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ne-patriots/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Posts
