Chrysler sells all 6400 Dodge Challenger muscle cars

Michael Johnson > wrote:
> Even with water there are many areas where supply is more than adequate.
> I live in Virginia and we have water running out of our ears. If we
> need more then we build another dam. The real problem when it comes to
> water is too many people want to live in places where it is scarce. For
> some reason we think living by the millions in Phoenix, Las Vegas,
> Southern California etc. is the way nature intended. I hear these
> people complaining about water shortages and I just scratch my head and
> want to scream "You live in a f***ing desert, what do you expect?!?!"
> The same goes for many other parts of the world.
>
Of all the states that have access to the great lakes, only Indiana wants to
sup up as much as they can and not return what they used back into the
watershed. That's because only a tiny tip of the state is attached to the
lakes while the rest resides on land that has lowered their water table
through use of wells to a point where they are predicted to be screwed dry in
20 more years.

The agreement in place about using water from the great lakes is an
international treaty between Canada and the USA that mandates two way flow of
water. If it's taken in, it's got to be put back in.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> wrote:
>> On May 9, 1:56 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>> Enough Already wrote:
>>>> On May 9, 7:38 am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> A much-needed $260 million shot in the arm for Chrysler Canada.
>>>>> 6.1 litres, 425hp, mileage like a Durango SUV. But do you know why
>>>>> this is no threat to the environment? Because none of the buyers of
>>>>> these cars are going to use it as a daily driver. They will see
>>>>> weekend use in the summer, like most muscle cars.
>>>>> Which begs the question, why do they charge a $1200 gas-guzzler tax on
>>>>> it in Canada? If you think about it, the guy who opts to drive a
>>>>> 200hp 6-cylinder as their daily driver is burning more fuel than a guy
>>>>> with the Challenger who drives a 4-cylinder to work.
>>>>> Environmental laws need "adjusting."
>>>> How do you really know when and how far such cars will be driven? SUVs
>>>> with ****ty mileage are widely used for commuting, even with $4/gallon
>>>> gas. You still hear non-conscientious people saying "I can afford the
>>>> gas" - as if it's only about money.\
>>> Look at how many drivers are trying to dump their SUVs and look at the
>>> sales figures for low mileage cars and trucks for your answer. All that
>>> matters is how far the daily commute is and if the batteries can get
>>> them to work and back with an errand or two thrown in for good measure.
>>> Then they charge the car overnight for a $1.50 and do all over again
>>> the next day. If they have to take a trip then use gas and get 45+ mpg.
>>>
>>>> That obsession with taxes shows the disconnect between physical
>>>> resources and dollar wealth. Money is not a true resource, just a
>>>> measure of what people _think_ something ought to be worth; to other
>>>> people, not the planet, which ought to be the benchmark for wealth.
>>> You want to save the planet? Then make it economical to do so. If
>>> people can get 300 miles for a $3.00 charge then electric cars will
>>> happen and fast. People aren't going to live like paupers to satisfy a
>>> bunch of limousine liberals that burn more fuel in a month than most
>>> people will in their lifetime.
>>>
>>>> Money has taken too long to reflect physical resource depletion. Few
>>>> cared to listen when these things were predicted long ago. They
>>>> assumed all they had to do was get a paycheck and resources would
>>>> materialize from Heaven.
>>> What has been depleted? There is basically just as much iron, copper,
>>> aluminum, carbon, water etc. on the planet as there was ten million
>>> years ago. All we do is move it around from one place to the other. In
>>> 100 million years God knows where it will be.
>>>
>>>> http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm
>>>> Nature can't hear your excu$e$.
>>> Nature doesn't give a **** about mankind. We are nothing more than a
>>> slight itch on her backside. Life on Earth has taken hits far worse
>>> than anything mankind can dish out (comet hits, massive volcanic
>>> eruptions, total global ice coverage etc.) and has rebounded every time
>>> with even more diversity of life than before. Mankind is one arrogant
>>> life form to think he is the best the Earth can produce. Mankind is
>>> just the latest organism to affect the planet. Where do you think all
>>> this oxygen we breath came from which makes life as we know it possible?
>>> It came from another organism that run a muck for about a billion
>>> years. Our impact on the planet is infinitesimal compared to it.
>>>
>>> These environmentalists act like we are going to be around for a billion
>>> years and the Earth should never change during that time. When it comes
>>> to the planet Earth, the more things change the more they stay the same.
>>> If we are going to survive we had better get good at adapting and
>>> overcoming changes instead of thinking we can change the entire planet
>>> to our liking. What's next on our list of improvements for the planet?
>>> Stopping plate tectonics?
>>
>> +1
>>
>> If you really believe that man-made greenhouse gasses are warming the
>> climate there is one thing that should become an international
>> priority, and that is to manage fresh water. We need to make sure
>> that the use of all runoff and underground resources are optimized.
>> That would be worth multiple trillions of dollars, it is somethng we
>> can actually do, and it would yield benefits regardless of climate
>> change.
>
> Even with water there are many areas where supply is more than adequate.
> I live in Virginia and we have water running out of our ears. If we
> need more then we build another dam. The real problem when it comes to
> water is too many people want to live in places where it is scarce. For
> some reason we think living by the millions in Phoenix, Las Vegas,
> Southern California etc. is the way nature intended. I hear these
> people complaining about water shortages and I just scratch my head and
> want to scream "You live in a f***ing desert, what do you expect?!?!"
> The same goes for many other parts of the world.

I live in Las Vegas. Yes, it is a desert. BTW, we aren't complaining,
but we are concerned.

Pretty much ANY place on this planet has problems of one sort or
another. Virginia is no great place either -- I know, I lived there.

It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and sharing
way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.

Michael Johnson > wrote:
> We are finding out that it isn't global warming or climate change.
>
That's true, if you rely on newspaper opinion pieces, bloggers and shills
from the carbon emitting industries for your science and wear a tinfoil
beanie while ranting paranoically about it being a big socialist conspiracy
engineered by Al Gore. There hasn't been a single peer reviewed paper
published that refutes the fact that global warming is happening. Most of
the "scientists" have not worked in the field for over a decade or haven't
the qualifications to know anything about it.

Relying on their opinions is tantamount to relying on your dentist's opinion
about cancer treatment. Just because he's a doctor doesn't mean he's an
expert. You obviously don't know that.

Michael Johnson > wrote:
> These environmentalists act like we are going to be around for a billion
> years and the Earth should never change during that time.
>
It's not about saving the planet. The planet doesn't give a ****. The
planet survived the demise of more species than exist today.

And people who support the polluters say that change is natural, even when
it's accelerated by the polluters.


Just be sure that we keep getting our energy from the same people who fly
jetliners into our skyscrapers and control OPEC and things will be fine.

Don't you worry Jerry Buck. Hell! Even NASCAR's gone environmental and
stopped using leaded fuel and Bush, McCain and just about everybody else
except for a few fringe nutters say that global warming is for real.

Looks like Bush and McCain are followers of the diabolical Al Gore!

Frank Jones > wrote:
> Don't you worry Jerry Buck. Hell! Even NASCAR's gone environmental and
> stopped using leaded fuel and Bush, McCain and just about everybody else
> except for a few fringe nutters say that global warming is for real.
>
Don't ge me started on those jackasses in NASCAR. They still use
carburettors and push rods, and that technology hasn't been seen in a North
American automobile showroom since 1988.

Nice to see that they aren't using leaded gasoline though. That was banned
in the mid 1980's for road cars. They even allowed open face driver helmets
up until Earhardt died in 2001.

I guess at this rate, they'll be up to today's standards for "stock" cars by
2020.


Yee Haw! Go Jethro!

John Harding wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote:
>> Even with water there are many areas where supply is more than adequate.
>> I live in Virginia and we have water running out of our ears. If we
>> need more then we build another dam. The real problem when it comes to
>> water is too many people want to live in places where it is scarce. For
>> some reason we think living by the millions in Phoenix, Las Vegas,
>> Southern California etc. is the way nature intended. I hear these
>> people complaining about water shortages and I just scratch my head and
>> want to scream "You live in a f***ing desert, what do you expect?!?!"
>> The same goes for many other parts of the world.
>>
> Of all the states that have access to the great lakes, only Indiana wants to
> sup up as much as they can and not return what they used back into the
> watershed. That's because only a tiny tip of the state is attached to the
> lakes while the rest resides on land that has lowered their water table
> through use of wells to a point where they are predicted to be screwed dry in
> 20 more years.

I grew up in Indiana and have all my relatives still living there. They
have plenty of water. Besides, there is a great way to collect water.
It is called a dam. Indiana uses 303 mgd of ground water or 110,595 mgy
(million gallons per year). Indiana is comprised of 36,291 square
miles. Do the math and you will find the that the 110,595 mgy used is
3.28% of the State's annual rainfall volume of 3,369,077 mgy. Much of
Indiana's ground cover is natural which promotes high saturation of
rainfall into the soil. Typical runoff coefficients for natural, flat
land areas is about 0.25-0.35 which means the majority of rainfall soaks
into the soil. I doubt Indiana's water table levels are in much
jeopardy overall. I did a quick Google search regarding falling water
tables in Indiana and didn't find any huge issues regarding a dwindling
ground water supply in the state.

> The agreement in place about using water from the great lakes is an
> international treaty between Canada and the USA that mandates two way flow of
> water. If it's taken in, it's got to be put back in.

Do you know why the level of the Great Lakes are dropping? It is
because the Earth's crust is rebounding due to the weight of the
glaciers being removed from the retreat of the last ice age. Here's a
link: http://tinyurl.com/4szlt4 Trying to control the level of the
Great Lakes is like trying to stop a volcano from exploding.

Peter Franks wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On May 9, 1:56 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>> Enough Already wrote:
>>>>> On May 9, 7:38 am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> A much-needed $260 million shot in the arm for Chrysler Canada.
>>>>>> 6.1 litres, 425hp, mileage like a Durango SUV. But do you know why
>>>>>> this is no threat to the environment? Because none of the buyers of
>>>>>> these cars are going to use it as a daily driver. They will see
>>>>>> weekend use in the summer, like most muscle cars.
>>>>>> Which begs the question, why do they charge a $1200 gas-guzzler
>>>>>> tax on
>>>>>> it in Canada? If you think about it, the guy who opts to drive a
>>>>>> 200hp 6-cylinder as their daily driver is burning more fuel than a
>>>>>> guy
>>>>>> with the Challenger who drives a 4-cylinder to work.
>>>>>> Environmental laws need "adjusting."
>>>>> How do you really know when and how far such cars will be driven? SUVs
>>>>> with ****ty mileage are widely used for commuting, even with $4/gallon
>>>>> gas. You still hear non-conscientious people saying "I can afford the
>>>>> gas" - as if it's only about money.\
>>>> Look at how many drivers are trying to dump their SUVs and look at the
>>>> sales figures for low mileage cars and trucks for your answer. All
>>>> that
>>>> matters is how far the daily commute is and if the batteries can get
>>>> them to work and back with an errand or two thrown in for good measure.
>>>> Then they charge the car overnight for a $1.50 and do all over again
>>>> the next day. If they have to take a trip then use gas and get 45+
>>>> mpg.
>>>>
>>>>> That obsession with taxes shows the disconnect between physical
>>>>> resources and dollar wealth. Money is not a true resource, just a
>>>>> measure of what people _think_ something ought to be worth; to other
>>>>> people, not the planet, which ought to be the benchmark for wealth.
>>>> You want to save the planet? Then make it economical to do so. If
>>>> people can get 300 miles for a $3.00 charge then electric cars will
>>>> happen and fast. People aren't going to live like paupers to satisfy a
>>>> bunch of limousine liberals that burn more fuel in a month than most
>>>> people will in their lifetime.
>>>>
>>>>> Money has taken too long to reflect physical resource depletion. Few
>>>>> cared to listen when these things were predicted long ago. They
>>>>> assumed all they had to do was get a paycheck and resources would
>>>>> materialize from Heaven.
>>>> What has been depleted? There is basically just as much iron, copper,
>>>> aluminum, carbon, water etc. on the planet as there was ten million
>>>> years ago. All we do is move it around from one place to the
>>>> other. In
>>>> 100 million years God knows where it will be.
>>>>
>>>>> http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm
>>>>> Nature can't hear your excu$e$.
>>>> Nature doesn't give a **** about mankind. We are nothing more than a
>>>> slight itch on her backside. Life on Earth has taken hits far worse
>>>> than anything mankind can dish out (comet hits, massive volcanic
>>>> eruptions, total global ice coverage etc.) and has rebounded every time
>>>> with even more diversity of life than before. Mankind is one arrogant
>>>> life form to think he is the best the Earth can produce. Mankind is
>>>> just the latest organism to affect the planet. Where do you think all
>>>> this oxygen we breath came from which makes life as we know it
>>>> possible?
>>>> It came from another organism that run a muck for about a billion
>>>> years. Our impact on the planet is infinitesimal compared to it.
>>>>
>>>> These environmentalists act like we are going to be around for a
>>>> billion
>>>> years and the Earth should never change during that time. When it
>>>> comes
>>>> to the planet Earth, the more things change the more they stay the
>>>> same.
>>>> If we are going to survive we had better get good at adapting and
>>>> overcoming changes instead of thinking we can change the entire planet
>>>> to our liking. What's next on our list of improvements for the planet?
>>>> Stopping plate tectonics?
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> If you really believe that man-made greenhouse gasses are warming the
>>> climate there is one thing that should become an international
>>> priority, and that is to manage fresh water. We need to make sure
>>> that the use of all runoff and underground resources are optimized.
>>> That would be worth multiple trillions of dollars, it is somethng we
>>> can actually do, and it would yield benefits regardless of climate
>>> change.
>>
>> Even with water there are many areas where supply is more than
>> adequate. I live in Virginia and we have water running out of our
>> ears. If we need more then we build another dam. The real problem
>> when it comes to water is too many people want to live in places where
>> it is scarce. For some reason we think living by the millions in
>> Phoenix, Las Vegas, Southern California etc. is the way nature
>> intended. I hear these people complaining about water shortages and I
>> just scratch my head and want to scream "You live in a f***ing desert,
>> what do you expect?!?!" The same goes for many other parts of the world.
>
> I live in Las Vegas. Yes, it is a desert. BTW, we aren't complaining,
> but we are concerned.
>
> Pretty much ANY place on this planet has problems of one sort or
> another. Virginia is no great place either -- I know, I lived there.
>
> It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and sharing
> way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.

At least I don't have to water my grass in Virginia except for a few
weeks in August. IMO, every area of the country has its own brand of
beauty and my comments never said desert areas are ugly. My point is
they are not optimal for large scale human habitation. I'm not saying
that people shouldn't have a choice to live in desert areas but many of
these environmentalists use the Southwest, in general, to try and scare
the rest of the country into thinking they too have a water shortage.
This just isn't true.

If it weren't for colossal civil engineering projects (BTW, I am a civil
engineer) controlling stormwater runoff, very few people would occupy
the Southwest. There will come a point, IMO, where the number of people
living in this part of the country will be restricted as there is a
limited amount of water that they can utilize to support a given
population level.

On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:07:41 -0400, Michael Johnson >
wrote:

> I wonder what the next eminent global disaster will be according to the enviro-nazi?
>We are finding out that it isn't global warming or climate change.
>
Maybe it is just the "Change of Life". Perhaps old Ma`Nature is going
Menopausal.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli

On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:25:30 -0700, Peter Franks >
wrote:

<snip>
>
>I live in Las Vegas. Yes, it is a desert. BTW, we aren't complaining,
>but we are concerned.
>
When I was there in March ya`all sure as hell where.
>
>Pretty much ANY place on this planet has problems of one sort or
>another. Virginia is no great place either -- I know, I lived there.
>
Of course every place will have one problem or another, but picking a
place to live that isn't able to naturally support its population
isn't all that wise.
>
>It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and sharing
>way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.
>
Sounds like Communism, that didn't work where tried either. We will
always be constrained by societal boundaries, arbitrary or not.
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli

On Fri, 9 May 2008 07:38:32 -0700 (PDT), "$27 TRILLION to pay for
Kyoto" > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

> If you think about it, the guy who opts to drive a
>200hp 6-cylinder as their daily driver is burning more fuel than a guy
>with the Challenger who drives a 4-cylinder to work.
>Environmental laws need "adjusting."

put the tax on gasoline. Burning gas is what causes the damage.

Now that demand is growing faster than supply, the prices are going to
skyrocket anyway. The money might as well go to the government as
Exxon. At least then there is some home of tax relief elsewhere.
--

Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com