New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for cars

On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Pete10016" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "klunk" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Rich" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> "klunk" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Liberals are vermin" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2:33 am, "Rob Dekker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000
>>>>>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>>>>>> in cost
>>>>>>>>>>> for cars.
>>>>>>>>>>> Google does not show anything either on the subject of this post,
>>>>>>>>>>> other than
>>>>>>>>>>> a publication on carbon
>>>>>>>>>>> creditshttp://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%
>>>>>>>>>>> 20Intro...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So it's petty clear that you pulled that number out of your hat
>>>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>>>> a less
>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate place).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Others already showed the source of the article, which shows that
>>>>>>>>>>> the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926
>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle
>>>>>>>>>>> by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the
>>>>>>>>>>> lives
>>>>>>>>>>> of their
>>>>>>>>>>> vehicles through better gas mileage.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You believe that? A 20mph crash in a 1980 mid-sized car would do
>>>>>>>>>> about $1000 damage. A crash at that speed now causes almost $6000
>>>>>>>>>> damage. Why? Not inflation. Mandated safety features, like
>>>>>>>>>> airbags
>>>>>>>>>> which are all, "use once and replace." The people trying to push
>>>>>>>>>> these things on others always downplay the real cost, otherwise
>>>>>>>>>> people would simply refuse en masse to adopt them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO.... pulling all those numbers and bull**** conclusions out
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> your ass must have given your constipation problem some welcome
>>>>>>>>> relief.... ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except the numbers $5000-$10000 didn't come from me. It was all
>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>> the news the day the story broke.
>>>>>>>> Carbon whores.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and yet... all you provide is your say so as evidence... clearly, you
>>>>>>> don't understand how when someone demonstrates their grasp of
>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>> to be tenuous at best, that their interpretations of what they think
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> may have heard is only going to be suspect at best... iow... the only
>>>>>>> conclusion anyone can arrive at from your post is that you probably
>>>>>>> didn't hear what you've just claimed to hear.... and changing the
>>>>>>> follow-ups in the way you just did likely means you're just lying
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> ass off... ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's an essay which may help:
>>>>>> http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/19...-1300-car-tax/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obama plans to tax cars in all 57 states.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> my first instinct when seeing that link was.... "oh... michelle
>>>>> malkin....
>>>>> well, this going to be a load of horse****" and so, I was going to just
>>>>> write it off for the perpetual stupidity she indulges in.... but...
>>>>> since
>>>>> people who quote idiots like her get offended when she gets cut down
>>>>> without
>>>>> any response to her statements, I decided to give her the benefit of
>>>>> the
>>>>> doubt.... and now that I've written this... onto her article....
>>>>>
>>>>> ....and lo and behold... she does not disappoint... not only was that
>>>>> piece
>>>>> of tripe a confirmation of her typical, blindly cynical stupidity; her
>>>>> numbers are bogus and her argument basically boils down to "bigger cars
>>>>> are
>>>>> safer" which has absolutely no relevance to the issue of fuel
>>>>> efficiency...
>>>>> it just ****ing amazes me that idiots like her are taken even in the
>>>>> slightest seriously.... but... c'est la vie.... there is apparently a
>>>>> huge
>>>>> market for horse****.... ;-)
>>>>
>>>> She is ignorant but the basic facts are there.
>>>
>>> lol.... basic facts are useless when they are irrelevant to the subject....
>>> your argument is the equivalent of saying that since the earth rotates on
>>> its axis, you should wear a sweater when you go outside....

>> See, incapable of civil discussion.

> riiiiiiiiight.... and EXACTLY how was that response uncivil....?....

That's what I mean about being a hypocrite and incapable of civil
discussion. You ignore the on-topic substance and be insulting and think
that passes for being civil.

You were amusing at first, seeing you curse so much over nothing was
funny, but now it has just grown old.

If you want to discuss fuel economy regs in a civil manner, what I wrote
is still quoted below. Otherwise, buh-bye.


>>>> CAFE was designed to
>>>> eliminate the large passenger car. The automakers had eliminated
>>>> most of their large passenger cars by 1985. By 1997 only the ford crown
>>>> vic platform was left. It is now ending production.
>>>>
>>>> Government's interference with the CAFE law caused what was a tiny niche
>>>> vehicle class to explode in sales. It became known as the SUV. Along
>>>> with mini-vans these vehicles took the place of the traditional fullsize
>>>> american sedan. CAFE made fuel economy worse than it would have been
>>>> without CAFE by eliminating more effecient market choices. People are
>>>> going to buy vehicles that have the capacities and capabilities that
>>>> meet their maximum needs. This new legislation to demand that light
>>>> trucks meet a 30+mpg standard will simply mean that light trucks will no
>>>> longer have the capabilities the market is looking for. Expect people to
>>>> start buying whatever niche vehicles suit their needs best.
>>>>
>>>> This might mean trucks in the class of the Ford Excursion, bigger than
>>>> the light truck class. It might mean some sort of ginormous hybrid
>>>> station wagon. It might mean a new industry of rebuilding the existing
>>>> stock of SUVs and large sedans to keep them on the road. Whatever it
>>>> will mean there will be unintended consequences just like there were
>>>> with CAFE. These consequences will then inspire new government
>>>> interventions. For instance, they may prohibit rebuilding existing
>>>> vehicles should that become the way people get what they want. ( Never
>>>> mind that rebuilding old vehicles is better for the environment. )
>>
>> No response. figured as much. Not up to it. You can only spout what the
>> TV tells you for your team and call names, incapable of any kind of
>> decent discussion.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dude... I have no interest in explaining anything other than letting
>>>> you
>>>> know that you behaved like an asshole... and your drama-queen
>>>> histrionics
>>>> about the "republican crack" constitute nothing more than hypocritical
>>>> whining... as I've said a couple times now.... grow the **** up....
>>>> k....?....
>>>
>>> I could grow up to the standard of name calling like you? Laff. you're
>>> arguing on a second grade level if that. You call names and cry 'mommy
>>> mommy, he asked a loaded question in response to assinine statement'
>>> WHINE *CRY*.... 'he's an asshole/idiot/moron'. WHINE... call names...
>>> whine... That's what your interest is in. It's apparently all you do.
>>
>> no idiot.... I have no standard beyond what goes around, comes around...
>> if
>> you don't like getting a taste of your own medicine, then I'd suggest you
>> grow yourself a pair and grow the **** up, stupid... k...?...
>
> You haven't given me "a taste of my own medicine".

actually... this is the sort of medicine that takes time to work its way
through your system... just like it takes a battered wife or an abused child
time to process the reality of their experience in order to understand it,
so goes the nature of your experience here.... ;-)

> You just sit there
> calling names. It's about all you're capable of doing. If you'd given me
> what I dished out, you'd have taken up where your 'buddy' left off and
> actually tried to defend some notion of progressive government.
>
>> oh... and yes... beyond the other posts I exchange with intelligent
>> people
>> whom actually have some objectively-based and substantive rationale to
>> offer; giving reality checks to assholes like you does describe the bulk
>> of
>> my activities on usenut.... you are welcome for my efforts in helping you
>> to
>> become a better person.... ;-)
>
> At best, your definition of "intelligent" is agreeing with you 110%. And
> I did give that to you. As expected you called names and didn't
> respond. You're not capable of actual discussion so this was not a
> surprise in the least.

ROTFLMAO.... you're just like a child who spasms out over every drop of cod
liver oil you've had to swallow.... don't worry though... you'll eventually
regain your composure enough to believe this was all some form of bad
dream.... ;-)

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Pete10016" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "klunk" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Rich" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> "klunk" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Liberals are vermin" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2:33 am, "Rob Dekker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000
>>>>>>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>>>>>>> in cost
>>>>>>>>>>>> for cars.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Google does not show anything either on the subject of this
>>>>>>>>>>>> post,
>>>>>>>>>>>> other than
>>>>>>>>>>>> a publication on carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>> creditshttp://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%
>>>>>>>>>>>> 20Intro...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So it's petty clear that you pulled that number out of your hat
>>>>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>>>>> a less
>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate place).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Others already showed the source of the article, which shows
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and
>>>>>>>>>>>> $926
>>>>>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle
>>>>>>>>>>>> by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the
>>>>>>>>>>>> lives
>>>>>>>>>>>> of their
>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicles through better gas mileage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You believe that? A 20mph crash in a 1980 mid-sized car would
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> about $1000 damage. A crash at that speed now causes almost
>>>>>>>>>>> $6000
>>>>>>>>>>> damage. Why? Not inflation. Mandated safety features, like
>>>>>>>>>>> airbags
>>>>>>>>>>> which are all, "use once and replace." The people trying to
>>>>>>>>>>> push
>>>>>>>>>>> these things on others always downplay the real cost, otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>> people would simply refuse en masse to adopt them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO.... pulling all those numbers and bull**** conclusions
>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> your ass must have given your constipation problem some welcome
>>>>>>>>>> relief.... ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except the numbers $5000-$10000 didn't come from me. It was all
>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>> the news the day the story broke.
>>>>>>>>> Carbon whores.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and yet... all you provide is your say so as evidence... clearly,
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> don't understand how when someone demonstrates their grasp of
>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>> to be tenuous at best, that their interpretations of what they
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> may have heard is only going to be suspect at best... iow... the
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> conclusion anyone can arrive at from your post is that you probably
>>>>>>>> didn't hear what you've just claimed to hear.... and changing the
>>>>>>>> follow-ups in the way you just did likely means you're just lying
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> ass off... ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's an essay which may help:
>>>>>>> http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/19...-1300-car-tax/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obama plans to tax cars in all 57 states.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my first instinct when seeing that link was.... "oh... michelle
>>>>>> malkin....
>>>>>> well, this going to be a load of horse****" and so, I was going to
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> write it off for the perpetual stupidity she indulges in.... but...
>>>>>> since
>>>>>> people who quote idiots like her get offended when she gets cut down
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> any response to her statements, I decided to give her the benefit of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> doubt.... and now that I've written this... onto her article....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ....and lo and behold... she does not disappoint... not only was that
>>>>>> piece
>>>>>> of tripe a confirmation of her typical, blindly cynical stupidity;
>>>>>> her
>>>>>> numbers are bogus and her argument basically boils down to "bigger
>>>>>> cars
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> safer" which has absolutely no relevance to the issue of fuel
>>>>>> efficiency...
>>>>>> it just ****ing amazes me that idiots like her are taken even in the
>>>>>> slightest seriously.... but... c'est la vie.... there is apparently a
>>>>>> huge
>>>>>> market for horse****.... ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> She is ignorant but the basic facts are there.
>>>>
>>>> lol.... basic facts are useless when they are irrelevant to the
>>>> subject....
>>>> your argument is the equivalent of saying that since the earth rotates
>>>> on
>>>> its axis, you should wear a sweater when you go outside....
>
>>> See, incapable of civil discussion.
>
>> riiiiiiiiight.... and EXACTLY how was that response uncivil....?....
>
> That's what I mean about being a hypocrite and incapable of civil
> discussion. You ignore the on-topic substance and be insulting and think
> that passes for being civil.
>
> You were amusing at first, seeing you curse so much over nothing was
> funny, but now it has just grown old.
>
> If you want to discuss fuel economy regs in a civil manner, what I wrote
> is still quoted below. Otherwise, buh-bye.

ahhhhh.... iow... you have no explanation justifying your accusation....
you're just lashing out because of the pain of your public embarrassment at
being chastised for behaving like a spoiled child.... understood.... and now
that you find yourself incapable of addressing the subject matter without
further embarrassing yourself, you've chosen to declare yourself a winner
while running away to lick your wounds... how so very typical..... ;-)



>>>>> CAFE was designed to
>>>>> eliminate the large passenger car. The automakers had eliminated
>>>>> most of their large passenger cars by 1985. By 1997 only the ford
>>>>> crown
>>>>> vic platform was left. It is now ending production.
>>>>>
>>>>> Government's interference with the CAFE law caused what was a tiny
>>>>> niche
>>>>> vehicle class to explode in sales. It became known as the SUV. Along
>>>>> with mini-vans these vehicles took the place of the traditional
>>>>> fullsize
>>>>> american sedan. CAFE made fuel economy worse than it would have been
>>>>> without CAFE by eliminating more effecient market choices. People are
>>>>> going to buy vehicles that have the capacities and capabilities that
>>>>> meet their maximum needs. This new legislation to demand that light
>>>>> trucks meet a 30+mpg standard will simply mean that light trucks will
>>>>> no
>>>>> longer have the capabilities the market is looking for. Expect people
>>>>> to
>>>>> start buying whatever niche vehicles suit their needs best.
>>>>>
>>>>> This might mean trucks in the class of the Ford Excursion, bigger than
>>>>> the light truck class. It might mean some sort of ginormous hybrid
>>>>> station wagon. It might mean a new industry of rebuilding the existing
>>>>> stock of SUVs and large sedans to keep them on the road. Whatever it
>>>>> will mean there will be unintended consequences just like there were
>>>>> with CAFE. These consequences will then inspire new government
>>>>> interventions. For instance, they may prohibit rebuilding existing
>>>>> vehicles should that become the way people get what they want. ( Never
>>>>> mind that rebuilding old vehicles is better for the environment. )
>>>
>>> No response. figured as much. Not up to it. You can only spout what the
>>> TV tells you for your team and call names, incapable of any kind of
>>> decent discussion.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>>
>>>> you've gotten me all wrong, idiot.... I am a complete asshole to
>>>> assholes
>>>> like you and surrealist... there's nothing polite in my retorts to
>>>> ignoramuses who are too ignorant to appreciate civility and who are too
>>>> stupid to utilize objective reasoning and who are too insecure with
>>>> their
>>>> ignorant stupidity to demonstrate some measure of humility.... do feel
>>>> free
>>>> to think of my posts as an opportunity to learn this most valuable
>>>> lesson
>>>> in
>>>> being and becoming a decent human being.... ;-)
>>>
>>> Exactly. You're an asshole to everyone who doesn't agree with you.
>>
>> wrong, asshole... you and I haven't argued any points, so we have no
>> basis
>> for either agreement or disagreement...
>
> I argued CAFE with you. Your response was to call names and ignore what
> I presented.

no, actually you didn't.... you tried to deflect from the essential point
being conveyed to you by raising an issue we hadn't discussed before...


>> you were behaving like a whiny
>> asshole who perverted a decent conversation with someone else and I
>> simply
>> stepped in to let you know how much of an asshole you were being with
>> your
>> childishness...
>
> That's some nice projection you demonstrate.
>
>> and... as is true to the form of an asshole who's desperate to mitigate
>> the
>> pain of his embarrassment, you've extended the scope of this simple point
>> beyond the confines of the initial leg of this thread to spread your
>> childish whining over the rest of it because you are clearly too much of
>> a
>> childish asshole to simply accept such a harsh assessment of what you
>> instinctively know is your asshole nature... grow a pair and grow the
>> ****
>> up... k...?...
>
> Again, you're projecting. You're the one who decided to be the 'white
> knight' and defend your 'buddy's' honor against evil me.

wrong... I'm no one's white knight... but I am the bane of assholes... ;-)

> Yet you've yet
> to present a single argument to actually do so. You just keep calling me
> names. I suppose it's the best that can be expected of you. The
> amusement is wearing off and your act is becoming tiresome.
>
> How about you grow the **** up as you say, and start trying something
> beyond name calling, because that's all I've ever seen from you in
> response to anyone.

lol... clearly, you only see what you want to see.... ;-)


>>> Everyone who doesn't agree with you is 'childish' and not evolved.
>>> inscure, ignorant, blah blah blah blah. Because they don't agree with
>>> you. That's how you determine that they are all those things, they
>>> don't share your views. An astounding bit of arrogance typical of
>>> american political programming and conditioning.
>>>
>>> You're incapable of having a civil discussion with someone who isn't in
>>> lock step with your views.
>
>> well... that's just simply not true... I actually prefer discussions with
>> people whose views diverge from mine because that's how I learn... I just
>> have an extremely low tolerance threshold for asshole behaviour and my
>> method for dealing with that is to become an even bigger asshole than
>> they
>> in order to teach assholes the value of humility.... ;-)
>
> Sure you do. That's why you respond with name calling. You show all the
> grown-up characteristics of a 2nd grader. Instead of saying you do, how
> about just doing? Nahh... you don't because you can't.

lol... I did... and with you in another leg on this thread... you're
response was to whine l7ke a hypocritical child and declare that you were
going to take your ball and go home....


>>> That's why you think your buddy is civil and
>>> I'm not. He could make cracks about 'a nation of republicans' about how
>>> a free market view is not 'grown up' or 'evolved' and that's "civility"
>>> to you. Flip that around and suddenly it's being an asshole. You're a
>>> hypocrite.
>
>>> Even more hypocritical is your view on hemp in this branch when combined
>>> with our other views I've seen expressed. If people were free, then hemp
>>> would be legal but you'd have to deal with the horrors of them driving
>>> the vehicles they wanted and maybe choosing not to have airbags.
>
>> ROTFLMAO.... your argument here is soooooo abysmally inane, it's no
>> wonder
>> you're having such difficulties accepting the truth about your asshole
>> nature.... wtf do airbags have to do with someone driving while
>> intoxicated...?...
>
> Driving intoxicated? You've really lost it now. Anyway, it seems you
> can't keep track of things. The same government that you and your buddy
> that regulates us to 'evolve us' with seatbelts and airbags and fuel
> economy regs is the same government that protects us from ourselves
> by banning hemp/pot. Like all conditioned people it appears you can only
> think in a left/right manner. That's why a consistent pro-freedom view
> baffles you so.


lol.... and yet... your arguments epitomizes black and white, binary
thinking.... after all... if it is the same government creating both bad and
good regulations, then the problem isn't actually that the government isn't
anti-freedom... it's that you have no clue what you're talking about when
you invoke such terms.... ;-)

On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:

>>>>> lol.... basic facts are useless when they are irrelevant to the
>>>>> subject....
>>>>> your argument is the equivalent of saying that since the earth rotates
>>>>> on its axis, you should wear a sweater when you go outside....

>>>> See, incapable of civil discussion.

>>> riiiiiiiiight.... and EXACTLY how was that response uncivil....?....

>> That's what I mean about being a hypocrite and incapable of civil
>> discussion. You ignore the on-topic substance and be insulting and think
>> that passes for being civil.

>> You were amusing at first, seeing you curse so much over nothing was
>> funny, but now it has just grown old.
>>
>> If you want to discuss fuel economy regs in a civil manner, what I wrote
>> is still quoted below. Otherwise, buh-bye.

> ahhhhh.... iow... you have no explanation justifying your accusation....
> you're just lashing out because of the pain of your public embarrassment at
> being chastised for behaving like a spoiled child.... understood.... and now
> that you find yourself incapable of addressing the subject matter without
> further embarrassing yourself, you've chosen to declare yourself a winner
> while running away to lick your wounds... how so very typical..... ;-)

Wow. You really do live in a fantasy world. I told you right above.
Instead of being civil and discussing fuel economy requirements you
decided to be insulting. You're incapable of a civil discussion. You
want to trade name calling and rather low level insults as you do again
above.

If you 'chastise' children by calling them names, especially names like
'asshole', 'idiot', etc and so forth I suggest that you not have any.

And in what world is saying that if you won't discuss the topic at hand
I won't be bothered with an exchange any further 'declaring myself the
winner'? Winner of what? There has been no debate. You're incapable of
it as you've demonstrated time and time again. You've been given three
chances to respond to the material below and have failed to respond each
time. There's no 'victory' to declare when the other team won't even
take the field. It's just a forfeit.

Buh-bye.


>>>>>> CAFE was designed to
>>>>>> eliminate the large passenger car. The automakers had eliminated
>>>>>> most of their large passenger cars by 1985. By 1997 only the ford
>>>>>> crown
>>>>>> vic platform was left. It is now ending production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Government's interference with the CAFE law caused what was a tiny
>>>>>> niche
>>>>>> vehicle class to explode in sales. It became known as the SUV. Along
>>>>>> with mini-vans these vehicles took the place of the traditional
>>>>>> fullsize
>>>>>> american sedan. CAFE made fuel economy worse than it would have been
>>>>>> without CAFE by eliminating more effecient market choices. People are
>>>>>> going to buy vehicles that have the capacities and capabilities that
>>>>>> meet their maximum needs. This new legislation to demand that light
>>>>>> trucks meet a 30+mpg standard will simply mean that light trucks will
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> longer have the capabilities the market is looking for. Expect people
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> start buying whatever niche vehicles suit their needs best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This might mean trucks in the class of the Ford Excursion, bigger than
>>>>>> the light truck class. It might mean some sort of ginormous hybrid
>>>>>> station wagon. It might mean a new industry of rebuilding the existing
>>>>>> stock of SUVs and large sedans to keep them on the road. Whatever it
>>>>>> will mean there will be unintended consequences just like there were
>>>>>> with CAFE. These consequences will then inspire new government
>>>>>> interventions. For instance, they may prohibit rebuilding existing
>>>>>> vehicles should that become the way people get what they want. ( Never
>>>>>> mind that rebuilding old vehicles is better for the environment. )
>>>>
>>>> No response. figured as much. Not up to it. You can only spout what the
>>>> TV tells you for your team and call names, incapable of any kind of
>>>> decent discussion.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 2010-04-04, klunk > wrote:
>
>>>>>> lol.... basic facts are useless when they are irrelevant to the
>>>>>> subject....
>>>>>> your argument is the equivalent of saying that since the earth
>>>>>> rotates
>>>>>> on its axis, you should wear a sweater when you go outside....
>
>>>>> See, incapable of civil discussion.
>
>>>> riiiiiiiiight.... and EXACTLY how was that response uncivil....?....
>
>>> That's what I mean about being a hypocrite and incapable of civil
>>> discussion. You ignore the on-topic substance and be insulting and think
>>> that passes for being civil.
>
>>> You were amusing at first, seeing you curse so much over nothing was
>>> funny, but now it has just grown old.
>>>
>>> If you want to discuss fuel economy regs in a civil manner, what I wrote
>>> is still quoted below. Otherwise, buh-bye.
>
>> ahhhhh.... iow... you have no explanation justifying your accusation....
>> you're just lashing out because of the pain of your public embarrassment
>> at
>> being chastised for behaving like a spoiled child.... understood.... and
>> now
>> that you find yourself incapable of addressing the subject matter without
>> further embarrassing yourself, you've chosen to declare yourself a winner
>> while running away to lick your wounds... how so very typical..... ;-)
>
> Wow. You really do live in a fantasy world. I told you right above.
> Instead of being civil and discussing fuel economy requirements you
> decided to be insulting.

lol... and yet... you still haven't explained why my analogy was uncivil....


> You're incapable of a civil discussion. You
> want to trade name calling and rather low level insults as you do again
> above.
>
> If you 'chastise' children by calling them names, especially names like
> 'asshole', 'idiot', etc and so forth I suggest that you not have any.
>
> And in what world is saying that if you won't discuss the topic at hand
> I won't be bothered with an exchange any further 'declaring myself the
> winner'? Winner of what? There has been no debate. You're incapable of
> it as you've demonstrated time and time again. You've been given three
> chances to respond to the material below and have failed to respond each
> time. There's no 'victory' to declare when the other team won't even
> take the field. It's just a forfeit.
>
> Buh-bye.

ahhhhh.... so... you haven't quite yet regained your composure enough to
pick your balls up off the floor and run away to cry.... understood....
;-)



>>>>>>> CAFE was designed to
>>>>>>> eliminate the large passenger car. The automakers had eliminated
>>>>>>> most of their large passenger cars by 1985. By 1997 only the ford
>>>>>>> crown
>>>>>>> vic platform was left. It is now ending production.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Government's interference with the CAFE law caused what was a tiny
>>>>>>> niche
>>>>>>> vehicle class to explode in sales. It became known as the SUV. Along
>>>>>>> with mini-vans these vehicles took the place of the traditional
>>>>>>> fullsize
>>>>>>> american sedan. CAFE made fuel economy worse than it would have been
>>>>>>> without CAFE by eliminating more effecient market choices. People
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> going to buy vehicles that have the capacities and capabilities that
>>>>>>> meet their maximum needs. This new legislation to demand that light
>>>>>>> trucks meet a 30+mpg standard will simply mean that light trucks
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> longer have the capabilities the market is looking for. Expect
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> start buying whatever niche vehicles suit their needs best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This might mean trucks in the class of the Ford Excursion, bigger
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> the light truck class. It might mean some sort of ginormous hybrid
>>>>>>> station wagon. It might mean a new industry of rebuilding the
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> stock of SUVs and large sedans to keep them on the road. Whatever it
>>>>>>> will mean there will be unintended consequences just like there were
>>>>>>> with CAFE. These consequences will then inspire new government
>>>>>>> interventions. For instance, they may prohibit rebuilding existing
>>>>>>> vehicles should that become the way people get what they want. (
>>>>>>> Never
>>>>>>> mind that rebuilding old vehicles is better for the environment. )
>>>>>
>>>>> No response. figured as much. Not up to it. You can only spout what
>>>>> the
>>>>> TV tells you for your team and call names, incapable of any kind of
>>>>> decent discussion.

First.Post wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 07:27:15 -0700 (PDT), The PHANTOM
> > wrote:
>

> The engines available for the '67 Galaxy 500:
>
> 240 cu in (3.9 L) Thriftpower I6
> 289 cu in (4.7 L) Windsor V8
> 302 cu in (4.9 L) Windsor V8
> 352 cu in (5.8 L) FE V8
> 390 cu in (6.4 L) FE V8
> 428 cu in (7.0 L) FE V8

ISTR that the 352, 390, and 428 engines were all called big blocks.
So, did the FE code stand for F'ing Enormous? ;-)
--
Cheers, Bob

Money back? You have to put money in first. Instead of "money back," it's
"somebody else's money."

"Viejo Vizcacha" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 1, 8:00 pm, "Jerry Okamura" > wrote:
>> Translation: The people who are going to get hurt the most are the very
>> people that democrats say they care most about, those who are poor and
>> those
>> who are on the lower end of the wage scale.
>>
>
> But, if th Democrats increase taxes to the top 5% income, and also
> reduce the 800 billion dollars military budget by 70%, they could
> give some money back to those families with an anual income of 50K or
> less.
>
> VV
>