GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> wrote:
>> Ed White wrote:
>> > So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people
>> > want to buy?
>>
>> That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General
>> Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few
>> wanted them to keep doing it.
>>
>
> Are electic cars really the answer?. As many have pointed out, the nrg
> to run them has to come from somewhere. The answer is smaller vehicles
> and lower speeds. Prom solved and at no cost!!!!!!!!
>

The cars don't have to be that much smaller.. just lighter. Time to throw
out all that safety equipment.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
> our troops killed.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>
> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>
> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
>
> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
> General Motors (GM) executive said.

All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
people could drive as big vehicles as they want. Problem solved - and
US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to
pay for that oil.
Some US drivers have already switched.

No more overfed sheiks, no more corrupted congresses, and no more messy
and bloody failed invasions. No lies, either.

On 27 Dec 2006 02:34:04 -0800, wrote:

>
>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>> our troops killed.
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>>
>> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>>
>> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
>>
>> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
>> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
>> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
>> General Motors (GM) executive said.
>
>All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
>people could drive as big vehicles as they want.

From all I've read, we don't have enough land to produce enough of those things
to power our economy. It'd be a small supplement, but not a replacement.

>Problem solved

Nope. Guess again.

> - and
>US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to
>pay for that oil.

That'd sure be nice. We need a solution, tho, that somehow makes cars
effectively get 100 mpg in such a way that they're not boring and not too small
and don't involve sharing space with other people or be at the mercy of someone
else's driving the vehicle you're riding in, etc.

>Some US drivers have already switched.

A very tiny percentage. And if everybody did it, there wouldn't be enough
biodiesel and alcohol to keep everyone moving like they do now.

>No more overfed sheiks, no more corrupted congresses, and no more messy
>and bloody failed invasions.

That'd sure be nice, but won't happen via bio-diesel and alcohol.

The way to do it is the proposal to fight global warming with an artificial
ring of spacecraft orbiting above the equator, while casting a shadow on the
earth's surface to lower the temperature. Rig these spacecraft to also beam
electrical power to the planet via microwave energy, each spacecraft producing
a relatively small amount, and the energy problems will also be solved.

>No lies, either.

To do that, you'd have to get rid of all the people.

Dave Head

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk
Drivers are MURDERERS the connisseur of gay kid porn in
rec.autos.driving spewed this crapola all over the landscape after a
"session:"

> Brent P wrote:
>
> >
> > The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional
> > sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil
> > overseas.
>
> Here we go again. Another idiot calling for a multi-trillion $ program
> to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller
> cars and lower speeds.

You're a ****ing idiot. Have I told you that lately??? No??? Well,
consider yourself told! And why don't you take the lead and get the ****
off the roads.

> That wouldn't cost a thing.

Except the lives of those troops in Iraq and other foreign oil fields
that you were so "concerned," about in your originating post.

> In fact it would save both money and lives.

Yeah, right, and Saloth Sar was a kind and gentle leader.

> THINK

Take your own advice, you stupid asshole.



--
LBMHB/lb-VH/SADDAM supports the troops:
"Like hell. The Morons will just get a couple other jarheads to take
the place of these two. "
--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, Sept 13, 2006 10:43PM

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y6gbk2
Message ID:

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in
rec.autos.driving:
>
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
> > our troops killed.
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
> >
> > GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
> >
> > Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
> >
> > DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
> > would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
> > trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
> > General Motors (GM) executive said.
>
> All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
> people could drive as big vehicles as they want. Problem solved - and
> US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to
> pay for that oil.

From my understanding, just about any car in the USA right now can run
on E-10 with no modifications. Replace 10% (or even 5%) of our gas
consumption with ethanol sounds like a good start to me. But it would
only be a temporary measure while we develop something else and shake
the addiction to the black crack (oil) all together.

> Some US drivers have already switched.
>
> No more overfed sheiks, no more corrupted congresses, and no more messy
> and bloody failed invasions. No lies, either.

Well, all we have to do is get monkey boi and the rest of the neo-cons
out of power and then we can start.



--
--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend shows everyone in rec.autos.driving what a
stupid ****ing idiot it really is:

>
> wrote:
> > Ed White wrote:
> > > So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people
> > > want to buy?
> >
> > That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General
> > Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few
> > wanted them to keep doing it.
> >
>
> Are electic cars really the answer?.

Yes, it is, you ignoramus!

> As many have pointed out, the nrg to run them has to come from somewhere.

Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was
scuttled.....), hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas or just
about anything else that can turn a shaft..... Hell, if we could harness
the hot air that emanates from your mouth, we could probablly power a
1000 electric cars for a year!

> The answer is smaller vehicles
> and lower speeds. Prom solved and at no cost!!!!!!!!

Except for our nation's sovergnty as we are kept on the black crack from
the middle east so that cheap pieces of human waste like yourself don't
have to be inconvienced in any way. Go to hell, you traitor!

--
Aunt Judy defends a known *drunk driver*:

"Almost all vehicle 'accidents' are due to driver
recklessness but the Chappaquidick incident is one
instance where it may really have been no ones
fault except the idiot who built the bridge."
--"Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," 11/10/2005
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9jtjt
Msg ID:

Dave Head wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2006 02:34:04 -0800, wrote:
>
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>>> our troops killed.
>>>
>>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>>>
>>> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>>>
>>> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
>>>
>>> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
>>> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
>>> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
>>> General Motors (GM) executive said.
>> All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
>> people could drive as big vehicles as they want.
>
> From all I've read, we don't have enough land to produce enough of those things
> to power our economy. It'd be a small supplement, but not a replacement.
>
>> Problem solved
>
> Nope. Guess again.
>
>> - and
>> US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to
>> pay for that oil.
>
> That'd sure be nice. We need a solution, tho, that somehow makes cars
> effectively get 100 mpg in such a way that they're not boring and not too small
> and don't involve sharing space with other people or be at the mercy of someone
> else's driving the vehicle you're riding in, etc.
>
>> Some US drivers have already switched.
>
> A very tiny percentage. And if everybody did it, there wouldn't be enough
> biodiesel and alcohol to keep everyone moving like they do now.

http://www.changingworldtech.com/

Ed White wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
> > our troops killed.
> >
> > http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
> >
> > GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>
> So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people
> want to buy? And of course the politicians will keep buying gas
> guzzlers for themselves. Or maybe they will be like some of the
> hypocritical celebs who fly to events in private jets, but arrive at
> the "red carpet" in a Prius and tell everyone how concerned they are
> about the environment.

Sure. Because obviously someone has to do something, but the obvious
solution, that the general public will take the initiative on their own
and conserve fuel without any incentives doesn't work.

>
> If the government wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they
> should slap a hefty import duty on imported oil. But then, the Saudis
> might quit buying them off.

I don't know that there's any shady dealings going on; the public
*likes* cheap oil. Unfortunately, instead of enjoying the savings from
cheap fuel and banking or investing it, people then figure that they
can afford to drive a less efficient vehicle. I don't understand it,
but that seems to be a common mindset.

>
> I agree with the idea of reducing our dependednce on foreighn oil, I
> just think CAFE-like quotas are not only stupid, in the long run they
> won't work. If the government implements these stupid rules, then GM.
> Ford, and Chrysler will be hurt, and people who want large SUVs will
> just keep their old ones around longer - which will be worse for fuel
> economy, the government, and the environments, as wel as GM, Ford, and
> Chrysler.

I wouldn't say that keeping an old vehicle on the road longer would be
bad for the environment - the energy used in the production of a new
vehicle far outweighs the energy used to operate it over, say, a decade
or so.

That said, I agree that CAFE is simply the wrong way to go about this.
It's certainly a worthy goal to encourage people to buy fuel efficient
vehicles when they do choose to buy new vehicles. At the same time,
there is a real need for the traditional American light truck for use
by contractors, service businesses, etc. The problem is that these
same vehicles are also popular for personal use. Removing these
vehicles from the market completely is NOT the solution. The solution
is to somehow offer people an incentive to consume no more fuel than
they actually need. There's so many problems on so many levels with
people ending up consuming more than necessary and I myself am guilty.
I'm provided by my employer with a full-sized sedan to use for work;
while it is certainly nice to have a free car, it's far larger than I
actually need. However, because of my position, I get a full-sized
car, period. Yes, I actually did offer to take a smaller vehicle and
was told that that's just not how things work

nate

Someone wrote:
>
>Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>our troops killed.

I thought GM made the hummer? Did they start exploding like Pintos or
something?


---

Don't steal; the government hates competition!

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:10:12 GMT, David Hartung > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 27 Dec 2006 02:34:04 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>>>> our troops killed.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>>>>
>>>> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>>>>
>>>> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
>>>>
>>>> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
>>>> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
>>>> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
>>>> General Motors (GM) executive said.
>>> All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
>>> people could drive as big vehicles as they want.
>>
>> From all I've read, we don't have enough land to produce enough of those things
>> to power our economy. It'd be a small supplement, but not a replacement.
>>
>>> Problem solved
>>
>> Nope. Guess again.
>>
>>> - and
>>> US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to
>>> pay for that oil.
>>
>> That'd sure be nice. We need a solution, tho, that somehow makes cars
>> effectively get 100 mpg in such a way that they're not boring and not too small
>> and don't involve sharing space with other people or be at the mercy of someone
>> else's driving the vehicle you're riding in, etc.
>>
>>> Some US drivers have already switched.
>>
>> A very tiny percentage. And if everybody did it, there wouldn't be enough
>> biodiesel and alcohol to keep everyone moving like they do now.
>
>http://www.changingworldtech.com/

These people seem to have answers for far too many problems to be believable.
I'm guessing they're scamming for research $$$. If they knew how to do all
that stuff, they would, and probably wind up being richer than Gates.

DPH