Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Aug 6, 9:20*pm, wrote:
> On Aug 5, 9:21 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>
> > >>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
> > >>>> Congress in control!
> > >>> After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...
> > >> * *You've got it.
> > > Whew... thank you!
> > > We went so far right we went right into a ditch. *I say it's time we
> > > yank it left to get us back on the road. *Then if/when we go into the
> > > ditch on the left side we can pull it back to the right again.
> > >> You'll either have a left leaning "Republican"
> > > I think McCain is good guy and one that can work both sides of the
> > > isle... something we desperately need.
> > >> or a left leaning "Muslim."
> > > Religion doesn't determine a person's character. *(And, not that it
> > > matters, but you know he's Catholic, right?)
> > * * I know he was raised in a Muslim school,
>
> I knows these days, in this country, the constant media drumbeat is:
>
> Muslim = Terrorist
>
> And it's B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!
>
> I've lived in a 98% Muslim country, twice, for a total of almost three
> years, and my experience is that they are some of the most friendly,
> caring, warm-hearted and family-oriented people I've ever met. *I'll
> go further and say I wish our society here in American was even half
> as good. *And I'll finish this by saying I could/can ramble on for
> hours (please ask me to) telling stories about how well my family and
> I were treated by the "terrible Muslims".
>
> > his family is Muslim and/or
> > atheist
>
> "and/or"? *Wow.
>
> FYI -- they believe in a supreme being.
>
> > and I know he attended a Christian church where he never heard a
> > *thing* the pastor said.... Long drawn out nasty story.
>
> How would you know what he heard? *And of that what he agreed or
> disagreed with?
>
> > And though you are generally correct about character I'll just leave it at I
> > disapprove of him for a number of reasons.
>
> Fine. *But realize he is one of our/America's brightest (he graduated
> from Harvard with top honors), and could have picked any law firm he
> wanted to work for (cha ching!!), yet, instead he went into public
> service.
>
> And McCain is an outstanding American too. *(Though the Bush campaign
> team destroyed his character/war record back in 2000, like they later
> did to Kerry in 2004. *Sad.)
>
> > > Obama is another good guy, and I think he has the potential to be a
> > > great president. *That is as long as some Neanderthal doesn't
> > > assassinate him first...
> > * * Except that oil prices and taxes will likely go so high
>
> Oil prices -- like double or triple in price? *What was the price of
> gas again around the year 2000? *And what is it now?
>
> > that normal
> > people will not be able to afford to live.
>
> Seems anymore the Republicans spend the money (always leave with huge
> deficits) and the Democrats end up having to pay for it (balance the
> budget). *Who's the "conservative" party, again?
>
> > At least McCain has not
> > admitted to wanting to raise taxes *that I've heard*, and he talks about
> > tangible things to do.
>
> Campaign promises. *Even if you 'read their lips', I wouldn't bank on
> them.
>
> > Obama talks about nothing but change. When you
> > ask what change he says change for the GOOD! *Well hell, how can you
> > argue with that?
>
> The fact of the matter is neither guy really knows what they can or
> can't do until they sit in the oval office.
>
> Patrick

The causal contribution of the Bush White House to the mortgage mess,
the price of gasoline and food, and the weakness in the economy is
most certainly not due to its devotion to conservative principles.
The Bush maxim, "If someone hurts government's gotta move," is the
polar opposite of conservatism. 180 degrees out, you might say. The
60% growth in the federal budget in seven years, the runup in food
prices, and the disastrous nation-building adventure in Iraq came to
pass for two principal reasons: one, that Bush is a buffoon, and two,
that we had a unified government (the same party in control of both
the White House and Congress) for most of the Bush years. These
things, and any other Bushist disaster you care to mention, are 100%
not due to Bush's "conservatism." I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks
Bush is a conservative, or even that he is right of center, either
does not know the definition of conservatism, has not been paying
attention or thinking for himself, or is an idiot. He's probably all
of the above.

The correct analysis in any presidential election is, who ranks the
lowest on the scale of buffoonery/amateurism/foolishness, and which
party has control of Congress?

Unified government is the greatest evil of all, at least among those
evils we can easily control. Since the Republicans have managed to
manuver themselves out of a congressional majority for the foreseeable
future, the choice of McCain for President is automatic.

On the buffoonery scale, Obama's promises that his administration is
going to blow up the role of federal government, e.g., in the
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and in the federal takeover of
the 20% of GDP that is the health care sector, at the same time as he
intends to exclude the representatives of the affected industries from
any role whatsoever in the writing of the thousands of pages of laws
and regulations that these takeovers will require, gives him the edge
in a walk. In fact we should retire the trophy -- after we have
inscribed with the names of all the Obamaniacs who think it's a good
idea to have the amateurs who actually write our laws do so without
any input whatsoever on the part of the affected industries. How the
f**k is that a good idea? It's nuts.

As to all the rest of the Obama agenda, he is more and more a stealth
candidate, a blank slate blathering generalities that each listener
can fill in with whatever content matches his personal values. That
is the most dangerous candidate of all. That is exactly what we have
in President Bush -- a content-free vessel interested in only one
thing: power.

McCain is not a lot better on the buffoonery scale. But his small
margin in this area, combined with the giganitc benefit of the divided
government that his election would bring for at least four years, if
not eight, makes him the far better choice of the two.

Put it this way: if you want to see another eight years with a 60%
growth in federal spending and a no-holds barred assault on personal
liberty in the form of Big Government interference in every nook and
cranny of our private lives, vote for Obama. Obama truly represents
the third and fourth terms of the Bushist regime. The difference will
be a fine-tuning in the quality of the Big Government disasters that
we will experience, but the quantity will be the same if not greater.

180 Out

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:30:36 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>> On Jul 31, 12:38 pm, "dwight" > wrote:
>>
>>> I have to believe that there are two major considerations in NOT buying a
>>> Mustang.
>>
>>> 1. Insurance. The rates for a V8 engine are killer for young people.
>>> Hell,
>>> I'm an old fart, and I still pay a penalty for having a V8, one that puts
>>> my
>>> rates on a 1993 Mustang right up there with my wife's new 2007 Escape. I
>>> get
>>> a break on the insurance for the convertible, because I can't drive both
>>> cars at the same time, otherwise, I'd have to seriously consider keeping
>>> two!
>>
>> But doing a little street racing in a V8 pony car on the way to get a
>> gallon of milk is relatively cheap entertainment.
>
>I try to be good around the neighborhood. I really do.
>
>>> 2. Young people usually mean young families. I've lost count of how many
>>> people have said that they had to sell off their Mustangs when they had
>>> kids. To me, that's a lame excuse, since the back seat of a Mustang isn't
>>> much good for anything BUT kids, but it must be the whole
>>> access-to-the-back-seat-in-a-coupe thing that makes them go away. It's so
>>> much easier to transport children in a 4-door sedan, minivan, or SUV.
>>
>> But I've read women are having kids/family at a much later age now.
>> It's more like late 20s/30s than early 20s.
>
>Even MORE of a reason to avoide a coupe. Imagine a bunch of broken down
>30-somethings trying to shepherd small children in and out of that back
>seat. I haven't even SEEN the back seat in the Mustang since I topped 50.

I didn't realize you were suicidal :0) "a bunch of broken down
30-somethings"???? It's just possible you may never see the back seat
of anything with comments like that. LOL

I feel sorry for you :0) I've seen the back seat looking up, and I've
seen it looking down, and sideway. Guess it's part of reliving my
younger days when it didn't matter which seat you were in as much as
it mattered who you were with and what you were doing. LOL :0)
>
>>> Those of us who are kidless and have the means can look to Mustangs,
>>> certainly, but a V8 coupe doesn't fit the needs for a lot of the younger
>>> ones.
>>
>> It fits if the Mustang has a hatchback.
>>
>> Patrick
>
>It sure as hell fit ME. I always quote your line - the ultimate sport
>utility vehicle. Unfortunately, the youngest Mustangs with a hatchback are
>now 15 years old, and not a consideration for today's booming babyers.
>
>dwight
>

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:25:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Aug 4, 10:39 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>
>> >> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
>> >> Congress in control!
>
>> > After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...
>
>> You've got it.
>
>Whew... thank you!
>
>We went so far right we went right into a ditch. I say it's time we
>yank it left to get us back on the road. Then if/when we go into the
>ditch on the left side we can pull it back to the right again.
>
>> You'll either have a left leaning "Republican"
>
>I think McCain is good guy and one that can work both sides of the
>isle... something we desperately need.
>
>> or a left leaning "Muslim."
>
>Religion doesn't determine a person's character. (And, not that it
>matters, but you know he's Catholic, right?)

It doesn't? How about those who strap munitions to children and send
them out to die in the name of Allah?

JFK was a Catholic, too.
>
>Obama is another good guy, and I think he has the potential to be a
>great president. That is as long as some Neanderthal doesn't
>assassinate him first...

Hope that doesn't happen. If it does, I think we will have fire and
blood in the streets everywhere.
>
>Patrick

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:21:34 -0500, "WindsorFox<SS>"
> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 10:39 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>>
>>>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
>>>>> Congress in control!
>>
>>>> After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...
>>
SNIP
>>> or a left leaning "Muslim."
>>
>> Religion doesn't determine a person's character. (And, not that it
>> matters, but you know he's Catholic, right?)
>
> I know he was raised in a Muslim school, his family is Muslim and/or
>atheist and I know he attended a Christian church where he never heard a
>*thing* the pastor said.... Long drawn out nasty story. And though you
>are generally correct about character I'll just leave it at I disapprove
>of him for a number of reasons.

Well put.

In the words of Vladimir Lenin......
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will
never be uprooted.
-Vladimir Lenin

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.
-Vladimir Lenin

No, I'm not a Commie. Sun Tzu (c. 544*496 BC) in "Sun Tzu: Art of War"
advised that in order to win, one must know the enemy.

Look up Liberation Theology and you find that it was an ideal started
in South America by Catholic clergy to fight social injustice by the
"distribution of wealth" using a Marxist model in the 1950s. This is
what Rev Wright preached, and what Obama absorbed for 20 years.
Add that concept to the Muslim model of his "father" and you have a
basis for change. It's change. He'll break a dollar for you and you'll
still owe 90 cents for the priviledge.
>
>
>>
>> Obama is another good guy, and I think he has the potential to be a
>> great president. That is as long as some Neanderthal doesn't
>> assassinate him first...

Which is better? To take a chance on the devil you know, or to take a
chance on the devil you don't know?
>>
>
> Except that oil prices and taxes will likely go so high that normal
>people will not be able to afford to live. At least McCain has not
>admitted to wanting to raise taxes *that I've heard*, and he talks about
>tangible things to do. Obama talks about nothing but change. When you
>ask what change he says change for the GOOD! Well hell, how can you
>argue with that?

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:20:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Aug 5, 9:21 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>
>> >>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
>> >>>> Congress in control!
>
SNIP
>
>I knows these days, in this country, the constant media drumbeat is:
>
>Muslim = Terrorist
>
>And it's B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!
>
>I've lived in a 98% Muslim country, twice, for a total of almost three
>years, and my experience is that they are some of the most friendly,
>caring, warm-hearted and family-oriented people I've ever met. I'll
>go further and say I wish our society here in American was even half
>as good. And I'll finish this by saying I could/can ramble on for
>hours (please ask me to) telling stories about how well my family and
>I were treated by the "terrible Muslims".

Very likely true. I spent mose of my life traveling the world. What I
found, from the deserts of north Africa, to the rice paddies of the
Mekong, is that "those" people are not in charge.
>
>> his family is Muslim and/or
>> atheist
>
>"and/or"? Wow.
>
>FYI -- they believe in a supreme being.

His mother was an aethist. Two of his fathers were Muslim and
extremist leaning. Yes they believe in a Supreme Being. Yes, many of
the Christian biblical figures, like Noah and Abraham, figure
prominently in their religion. Belief in a Supreme Being does not
determine whether one is good or eveil in the eyes of others.
>
>> and I know he attended a Christian church where he never heard a
>> *thing* the pastor said.... Long drawn out nasty story.
>
>How would you know what he heard? And of that what he agreed or
>disagreed with?

Even Oprah heard what he says he never heard. Perhaps he didn't hear
anything because it fit with what he thought was right?
>
>> And though you are generally correct about character I'll just leave it at I
>> disapprove of him for a number of reasons.
>
>Fine. But realize he is one of our/America's brightest (he graduated
>from Harvard with top honors), and could have picked any law firm he
>wanted to work for (cha ching!!), yet, instead he went into public
>service.

How many years did the terrorists plan to attack the WTC? Heck, they
tried twice. How many "sleeper agents" have the Communists had in
place in the USA awaiting orders? Being groomed to take over some
aspect of our society to bring it down at the appropriate time? Money
means nothing to such people. Germany did the same thing during WW2.

>And McCain is an outstanding American too. (Though the Bush campaign
>team destroyed his character/war record back in 2000, like they later
>did to Kerry in 2004. Sad.)

Kerry deserved what he got. He really deserved worse, but it would
have been un-American for all of us who served in Vietnam to have
lynched him for the accusations and lies he told. Talk about giving
the enemy free publicity.
>
>> > Obama is another good guy, and I think he has the potential to be a
>> > great president. That is as long as some Neanderthal doesn't
>> > assassinate him first...
>
>> Except that oil prices and taxes will likely go so high
>
>Oil prices -- like double or triple in price? What was the price of
>gas again around the year 2000? And what is it now?

What was it before the embargo of the 70s and what was it after the
embargo ended? Did it ever go back down?
>
>> that normal
>> people will not be able to afford to live.
>
>Seems anymore the Republicans spend the money (always leave with huge
>deficits) and the Democrats end up having to pay for it (balance the
>budget). Who's the "conservative" party, again?

I hope you can still feel that way when the new "social programs"
designed to "redistribute the wealth" have been instituted and your
taxes go through the roof to pay for them.
>
>> At least McCain has not
>> admitted to wanting to raise taxes *that I've heard*, and he talks about
>> tangible things to do.
>
>Campaign promises. Even if you 'read their lips', I wouldn't bank on
>them.

But you're banking on Obama to make changes for the good of the
nation? If what politicians promise are simply "campagne promises",
how can you believe what either candidate says? They both make
promises.
>
>> Obama talks about nothing but change. When you
>> ask what change he says change for the GOOD! Well hell, how can you
>> argue with that?
>
>The fact of the matter is neither guy really knows what they can or
>can't do until they sit in the oval office.

That is true. However, if the Oval Office and the Congress both lean
the same way, I think the chances are pretty good that Checks and
Balances are right out the window, and the little peope, as Leona
Helmsley put it, will be the ones who pay.
>
>Patrick

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:16:25 -0700, "Les Benn" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Jul 31, 1:42 pm, Spike > wrote:
>>
>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
>>> Congress in
>>> control!
>>
>> After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...
>>
>> Patrick
>
>Yep while they fly overhead in the Lear and Cessna Citations and flip us the
>bird. I assume you heard the dems was all upset that they could not get
>discounted gas by draining the city gas in Chicago for their convention,
>since city gas has no taxes on it.
>
>what the dems want is us in horses and buggies so they can commute by jet
>and limo
>
Awwww. Ya been listening to that Dear Leader Al Gore again. :0) LOL
"Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what you can do for
me!"

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Aug 5, 2:16 pm, "Les Benn" > wrote:
>
>> >> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
>> >> Congress in
>> >> control!
>
>> > After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...
>
>> Yep while they fly overhead in the Lear and Cessna Citations and flip us the
>> bird. I assume you heard the dems was all upset that they could not get
>> discounted gas by draining the city gas in Chicago for their convention,
>> since city gas has no taxes on it.
>
>> what the dems want is us in horses and buggies so they can commute by jet
>> and limo
>
>Sounds like the "reporting"/opinion of the FauxOX, spin zone,
>propaganda news channel.
>
>Patrick

How is it that anyone can say Fox is biased for the right, and CNN
ISN'T biased to the left? How is it that people who think that way
believe that people don't listen to both, weigh the information, and
come to their own conclusions? That is arrogant. That's saying you're
smarter than anyone who believes different from what you believe and
they ares stupid sheep, etc. Yet, from the opposite approach, you
would only accept what you are told by the left and not be a stupid
sheep. WTF????

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:53:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Aug 5, 9:24 pm, "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote:
>
>> >>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
>> >>>> Congress in
>> >>>> control!
>
>> >>> After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...
>
>> >> Yep while they fly overhead in the Lear and Cessna Citations and flip us the
>> >> bird. I assume you heard the dems was all upset that they could not get
>> >> discounted gas by draining the city gas in Chicago for their convention,
>> >> since city gas has no taxes on it.
>
>> >> what the dems want is us in horses and buggies so they can commute by jet
>> >> and limo
>
>> > Sounds like the "reporting"/opinion of the FauxOX, spin zone,
>> > propaganda news channel.
>
>> Come on Patrick, you can't truly think Fox is making false reports
>> or is genuinely biased?
>
>I'll be nice and just say that their bias is so obvious it's
>comedic.
>
>> And compared to some other agencies??
>
>What FauxOX has done is become -- the ditch/low ground on the right
>side of the road -- the complete flip opposite of the extremists on
>the left.
>
>> I mean
>> Rather was blatantly caught in a great big fat lie. You're starting to
>> sound like that whack-o troll with the 72 Mustang that used to drop in
>> on occasion.
>
>Nope. I'm just being me. I think if you go back and read anything
>I've written in here for the last... 10-12 years... you'll see that
>I've always been a liberal thinker with conservative values.
>
>Patrick
>
And you don't think people can see the bias coming out of thetalking
heads of CNN, etc?

I don't think you can be a liberal thinker and have conservative
values. You CAN be a thinker with an OPEN MIND and have conservative
values. A conservative value is believing that people are responsible
for their own actions, and that there is a right and a wrong. A
liberal thinker tends to believe that society is to blame and should
pay for the wrongs of an individual.

Example: MILLIONS of us served in Vietnam. MILLIONS of us came home to
lead normal hard working lives in factories, businesses, public
service, etc. A few thousands in all those years came home to rob
banks, kill people, etc.

Now, the conservative is likely to say those who did such things are
responsible for what they did and should pay the price. Sure, there
may be reasons the individual turned to crime, but they still
committed a crime. A liberal thinker says, it's not their fault.
Society is to blame. Society pulled the trigger. Coming from a poor
neighborhood made them bad.

Many many years ago, I supported a great Democrat, even though I was a
Republican. He had bold ideas. Lower taxes would bring greater
prosperity... and it did. He believed in the strong military as a
strong deterrance against agression, and backed his belief, and it
was. He had ideas of correcting social injustice by raising up the
down trodden so that they might achieve their dreams, not be handed
them, and people like Colin Powell rose to greatness. Then he was shot
in Dallas. Yet his ideals lived on and proved correct. Then, the
Republicans adopted his ideals, and the Democrats dumped them. Why?
Why, when that era was one of the greatest periods of prosperity and
achievement in our history.

Today I am an Independent. I weigh the factors and select a candidate
based on what I believe is best for our nation in the long term. It
happens that what I see best for the nation in the long term seems to
lean more to the right. I honestly believe that everyone should have
to work as hard as me to secure the same life for themselves. That
nobody deserves to be granted extra rights and priviledges in order to
address wrongs which occured generations before my family immigrated
here. That everyone should serve the nation in some way as thanks for
the rights and freedoms they have. That people are responsible for
their own actions, as well as for their own successes. That this is
NOT a nation where the motto is "From each according to his ability,
to each according to his need." That there will always be those who
have less than others, but that should not mean I have to pay to make
up the difference. I worked to pay for my healthcare, and my taxes pay
for others to get free healthcare?

Ya know, it really gets under my skin when people infer by what news I
watch, etc, that I am too stupid to know anything... and sadly, I get
that treatment far more from Democrats than I do from Republicans.

OK who gets the soapbox next???? Let's see, I had number 49. Who has
number 50? :0)

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:33:52 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>"Les Benn" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Jul 31, 1:42 pm, Spike > wrote:
>>>
>>>> God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning
>>>> Congress in
>>>> control!
>>>
>>> After the last 7+ painful years, I say bring it...
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>
>> Yep while they fly overhead in the Lear and Cessna Citations and flip us
>> the bird. I assume you heard the dems was all upset that they could not
>> get discounted gas by draining the city gas in Chicago for their
>> convention, since city gas has no taxes on it.
>>
>> what the dems want is us in horses and buggies so they can commute by jet
>> and limo
>
>Sure, blame a political party, as if the entire party was unified in its
>hyperenvironmentalism. Way to think in two-dimensional terms.
>
>Anybody else hear about Nissan's plans to use a push-back accelerator pedal
>to curb drivers who feel frisky? It's another way to increase fuel mileage,
>by disallowing brisk acceleration.
>
>What good is a car with 300hp, if you can't use 'em?
>
>dwight
>

Makes a good paperweight? It's a nice place for a trucker to park his
rig when you can't accelerate quick enough to get out of his way?

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:30:36 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>>Even MORE of a reason to avoide a coupe. Imagine a bunch of broken down
>>30-somethings trying to shepherd small children in and out of that back
>>seat. I haven't even SEEN the back seat in the Mustang since I topped 50.
>
> I didn't realize you were suicidal :0) "a bunch of broken down
> 30-somethings"???? It's just possible you may never see the back seat
> of anything with comments like that. LOL
>
> I feel sorry for you :0) I've seen the back seat looking up, and I've
> seen it looking down, and sideway. Guess it's part of reliving my
> younger days when it didn't matter which seat you were in as much as
> it mattered who you were with and what you were doing. LOL :0)

Oh, man... I haven't even WANTED to do certain things in a car since I was
able to have my own place. Sure, there was a 1972 Pinto hatchback in my
youth, but that was pre-apartment.

Unless I was out shopping for professionals (and I'm not), there are plenty
of far better environments than a too-small back seat in an automobile.

As to all those broken-down 30-somethings, the airwaves are chock full of
commercials for pain relievers to take care of ALL of their aches, real and
imagined.

)