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

On Aug 12, 8:22*pm, wrote:
> On Aug 12, 10:31 am, wrote:

You need to look at the reality behind the resume-speak puffery of
Obama's carefully-tailored Wikipedia bio.
>
> > Two points:
> > I wouldn't get too excited about Obama's education and his post-
> > graduate career. What I see is a portrait of a slacker. After
> > graduating from Columbia he slacked *for four years. He had to work
> > hard to graduate with honors from Harvard, but jeeze that's just three
> > years of your life. *Practicing attorneys work two or three times
> > harder, year after year after year, than they ever dreamed *of doing
> > in law school. *Obama also had an advantage of maturity over his
> > classmates at Harvard Law, being four years older than most of them.
>
> From Wiki.
>
> Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988 and at the end of his
> first year was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based
> on his grades and a writing competition.[17] In his second year he was
> elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position
> functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review's staff
> of 80 editors.[18] Obama's election in February 1990 as the first
> black president of the Harvard Law Review was widely reported and
> followed by several long, detailed profiles.[18] He graduated with a
> J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991 and returned to Chicago
> where he had worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley &
> Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990.

I concede that he had a distinguished career at Harvard Law. But his
choice of summer jobs, and the absence of any post-graduate judicial
clerkships -- which he certainly could have had for the asking,
includng on the U.S. Supreme Court -- are red-flag raisers. This lack
of distinction is glaringly inconsistent with his acheivement in law
school. What does it mean? I don't know, but it's odd.

> > Then he goes back to Chicago and becomes an utterly undistinguished
> > lecturer at the University of Chicago. *I went to law school too (O
> > went to another top school, at UC Berkeley, currently ranked #6 by
> > U.S. News) and I know all about these high-end law school professors.
> > Slackers, most of them, through and through. *Particularly in
> > Constitutional Law -- Obama's specialty -- it's a simple bag of tricks
> > they pull out and use week in week out, year after year, to the
> > amazement and admiration of their adoring students. *But it's a very
> > low level of intellectual activity. *The ground is very well plowed.
> > That which distinguishes a true legal scholar is -- what? -- legal
> > scholarship. *On that metric Obama is a nobody. *He did not publish
> > anything. He did not collaborate with his colleagues at the law
> > school. *He was a clock watcher and a resume builder. *Not to mention
> > an affirmative action hire. *He put in his time in the lecture hall
> > and that was it. A slacker.
>
> Obama directed Illinois Project Vote from April to October 1992, a
> voter registration drive with a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers that
> achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered
> African Americans in the state, leading Crain's Chicago Business to
> name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.[21][22]

Seven months managing a get-out-the-vote effort. Big deal. A
population of 400,000 targets, and he reached 38% of them. Big deal.
710 people register an average of 710 people in seven months -- a
hundred people per worker pre month. Three per day. Big deal.
>
> In 1993 Obama joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 12-attorney
> law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood
> economic development, where he was an associate for three years from
> 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license
> becoming inactive in 2002.[11][24]

Extremely small potatoes. Totally inconsistent with someone with
Obama's educational credentials. Also, "Of Counsel" means, by
defintion, someone who's rarely doing any actual legal work; a name
that looks good on the letterhead. Usually a retired attorney.
Obama: retired from the private sector at age 34. Yeah that sounds
right. Also conspicuous by its absence in the three years when he was
supposed to be a practicing attorney is any mention of any significant
litigation or other accomplishments. Totally a clockwatcher
experience.

> Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies
> in 1992, resigning before his wife, Michelle, became the founding
> executive director of Public Allies Chicago in early 1993.[11][25]

OK great, he founded a something-or-other then turned it over to his
wife in less than one year. Whatever.

He
> served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which
> in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund Obama's DCP, from 1993–
> 2002, and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation
> from 1994–2002.[11]

Again, whatever.

Obama served on the board of directors of the
> Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, as founding president and
> chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999.[11]

Obama creates another something-or-other, and guess what he's the
boss. Whatever.

He also served
> on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil
> Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the
> Lugenia Burns Hope Center.

More resume building. Do you even know what a member of the board of a
non-profit does? I would be surprised if Obama even read any staff
reports, much less that he actually got his hands dirty and
accomplished anything.

> > The same pattern repeated in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate.
> > A slacker through and through.
>
> Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State
> Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from the 13th District, which then
> spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south
> to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[26] Once elected, Obama
> gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health
> care laws.[27] He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-
> income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased
> subsidies for childcare.[28] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan
> Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican
> Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending
> regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures,[29] and in 2003,
> Obama sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation
> to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of
> drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state
> to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.

That doesn't sound like a lot for seven or eight years in office.

Also, did you edit out any reference to The Rev. Wright, or was it
Wikipedia?

> And now, at just age 46, is running for President of the United
> States. *Yep, no ambition, no drive... what a slacker.

Obama's resume, thick on the number of entries but lacking much
substance at all, shows plenty of ambition, but no accomplishment,
dedication or sacrifice. Nothing but self-gratification. I think the
slacker shoe fits quite well.
>
> > Point two: *just what are the advantages to foregoing the development
> > of fossil fuel resources in U.S. territory? Like it or not, we are a
> > CO2-based society. *That is not going to change in this century.
>
> Correct. *As long as the fossil fuels can just undercut the price of
> any developing alternatives.

You ducked the main question: what are the advantages of blocking the
exploitation of our own resources?

> > We either produce the fuel we need domestically, or buy it from abroad,
>
> Agreed. *But the point is we're not going to drill ourselves to
> independence. *Supply goes up, price goes down, alternatives take a
> back seat.

"Independence" is categorically impossible. It's a world market. If
our domestic oil is cheaper to produce than foreign oil, it will
merely affect the global price. It will never happen that 100% of what
is produced here is used here, or that 100% of what is used here is
produced here. What would be the purpose of such isolationism anyway?

> An interesting article.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipelin...nsumption.html
>
> > or reduce our consumption.

> That doesn't happen when oil is cheap. *Hell, the recent surge in
> prices didn't really change habits until we neared the 4-buck-a-gallon
> mark.

Well duh. My 3-legged stool describes the supply and demand forces
which produce the retail price. If the retail price is acceptable,
why would you want to change anything?

> > The wise choice is to strike a balance
> > between all three legs of this stool. * For Nancy Pelosi and Harry
> > Reid and Barack Obama to say no to domestic exploitation ignores this
> > wisdom. *What are the benefits of their foolishness? *I can see none.

> We have an addiction to oil, but be keep resorting to feeding it.

"Addiction" is a stupid word and ought to be banned from the
discussion. Our modern life requires energy. Energy requires the
consumption of oil. Our modern life is a wonderful thing. Why change
it?

> > And by the way, the obstinance of the Democratic leadership is going
> > to melt significantly when Congress returns from vacation on September
> > 8. *Write *it down. *What will you think of them then? *"Saving the
> > planet," indeed.
>
> Some unrelated to your post, but related to this thread info.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
>
> Patrick

180 Out

On Aug 13, 12:19*pm, wrote:
> On Aug 12, 8:22*pm, wrote:

<snip>

> > An interesting article.
>
> >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipelin...nsumption.html

Your link ratifies what I'm saying. A quote:

"Some of the oil that the U.S. consumes is produced domestically. But
while consumption has been on the rise over the years, production is
at a 50-year low. In 2005 the United States produced an average of 5.4
million barrels a day -- a little more than half of what it was
producing 20 years ago."

Domestic production off 50% in 20 years. That's disgraceful. Truly a
monument to how far the pendulum has swung in the greenie direction.

Check this editorial on put up yesterday (August 12) on the web site
of Investors Business Daily:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...1&show=1&rss=1

An excerpt:

"We've said it many times, but it bears repeating: The U.S. is awash
in oil, so much that it's almost mind-boggling. The idea we're somehow
energy-deficient is simply false — a lie, if you will.

"Let's take just that crude that exists in U.S. coastal waters —
whether off Alaska or California, or in the Gulf, or off the Atlantic
Coast. According to recent data from the American Petroleum Institute
and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. has 86 billion barrels of
oil offshore — and that's only what we can recover using today's
technology. Future technologies will boost that.

"This is no small amount. Offshore oil alone could fuel 65 million
cars for 47 years.

"Go onshore, and the bonanza gets even bigger. Some 11.7 billion
barrels of conventional oil are available in the Lower 48, and a
recent U.S. government report has identified another 45 billion in
Alaska and the Arctic region. Which explains why the U.S. this week
dispatched an exploration vessel to begin to stake our claim.

"Government estimates say there could be as many as two trillion
barrels of oil locked in shale-rock formations in Colorado, Wyoming
and Utah. Of that, at least 800 billion barrels is recoverable using
today's known technology and at prices below what we're now paying.
That's three times the oil reserves of today's No. 1 oil country,
Saudi Arabia.

"In short, America is an oil-rich nation. Our economy — the world's
economy — depends on oil for growth. And it will depend on oil and
coal at least through the middle part of this century, most estimates
show."

So tell me, why does it make sense not to exploit these resources at
full tilt?

180 Out

wrote in
:

> On Aug 13, 12:19*pm, wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 8:22*pm, wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> > An interesting article.
>>
>> >
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pipelin...nsumption.html
>
> Your link ratifies what I'm saying. A quote:
>
> "Some of the oil that the U.S. consumes is produced domestically. But
> while consumption has been on the rise over the years, production is
> at a 50-year low. In 2005 the United States produced an average of 5.4
> million barrels a day -- a little more than half of what it was
> producing 20 years ago."
>
> Domestic production off 50% in 20 years. That's disgraceful. Truly a
> monument to how far the pendulum has swung in the greenie direction.
>
> Check this editorial on put up yesterday (August 12) on the web site
> of Investors Business Daily:
> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...spx?secid=1501
&status=article
> &id=303433710389399&secure=1&show=1&rss=1
>
> An excerpt:
>
> "We've said it many times, but it bears repeating: The U.S. is awash
> in oil, so much that it's almost mind-boggling. The idea we're somehow
> energy-deficient is simply false — a lie, if you will.
>
> "Let's take just that crude that exists in U.S. coastal waters —
> whether off Alaska or California, or in the Gulf, or off the Atlantic
> Coast. According to recent data from the American Petroleum Institute
> and U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. has 86 billion barrels of
> oil offshore — and that's only what we can recover using today's
> technology. Future technologies will boost that.
>
> "This is no small amount. Offshore oil alone could fuel 65 million
> cars for 47 years.
>
> "Go onshore, and the bonanza gets even bigger. Some 11.7 billion
> barrels of conventional oil are available in the Lower 48, and a
> recent U.S. government report has identified another 45 billion in
> Alaska and the Arctic region. Which explains why the U.S. this week
> dispatched an exploration vessel to begin to stake our claim.
>
> "Government estimates say there could be as many as two trillion
> barrels of oil locked in shale-rock formations in Colorado, Wyoming
> and Utah. Of that, at least 800 billion barrels is recoverable using
> today's known technology and at prices below what we're now paying.
> That's three times the oil reserves of today's No. 1 oil country,
> Saudi Arabia.
>
> "In short, America is an oil-rich nation. Our economy — the world's
> economy — depends on oil for growth. And it will depend on oil and
> coal at least through the middle part of this century, most estimates
> show."
>
> So tell me, why does it make sense not to exploit these resources at
> full tilt?
>
> 180 Out

It depends on whom you talk to.

From where we (your average consumers) sit, it makes no sense at all,
except, of course, for the "greenie" factor.

From the standpoint of the energy/oil companies, they are making decent
profits right now with the status quo. That's why production is half of
what it was 20 years ago - there's no reason for them to spend more
money to make more oil available at a lower price to consumers.

"dwight" > wrote in
:

> "Scott W." <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote in message
> ...
>>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the
>>>> one-man/one-vote thing.
>>>>
>>>> dwight
>>
>> Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating the
>> idea that there are some of us MORE equal than others.
>>
>> Smacks of Animal Farm.
>>
>> Scott W.
>
> When I see a statistic at this point in the campaign season that there
> are still something like 11% UNDECIDED...
>
> Yeah, I think some of us are more equal than others. What kind of a
> drooling moron do you have to be to not make up your mind between the
> two viable candidates?
>
> dwight

Consider this: "I'm going to get screwed no matter who ends up in the
White House, so which one will do me the least harm?"

Got any advice?

dwight wrote:
> "Scott W." <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote in message
> ...
>>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the
>>>> one-man/one-vote thing.
>>>>
>>>> dwight
>>
>> Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating
>> the idea that there are some of us MORE equal than others.
>>
>> Smacks of Animal Farm.
>>
>> Scott W.
>
> When I see a statistic at this point in the campaign season that
> there are still something like 11% UNDECIDED...
>
> Yeah, I think some of us are more equal than others. What kind of a
> drooling moron do you have to be to not make up your mind between
> the two viable candidates?
>

The kind who sees too many differing outcomes, with potentiall upside
and downside on each side?

What kind of frozen brain does one have to have, to be able to make up
one's mind before all the information is in?

--
Frank ess

"Frank ess" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dwight wrote:
>> "Scott W." <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>>>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the
>>>>> one-man/one-vote thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> dwight
>>>
>>> Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating
>>> the idea that there are some of us MORE equal than others.
>>>
>>> Smacks of Animal Farm.
>>>
>>> Scott W.
>>
>> When I see a statistic at this point in the campaign season that
>> there are still something like 11% UNDECIDED...
>>
>> Yeah, I think some of us are more equal than others. What kind of a
>> drooling moron do you have to be to not make up your mind between
>> the two viable candidates?
>>
>
> The kind who sees too many differing outcomes, with potentiall upside and
> downside on each side?
>
> What kind of frozen brain does one have to have, to be able to make up
> one's mind before all the information is in?
>
> --
> Frank ess

This is not a decision between very similar products. It's Obama and McCain.
Could they be more different?

What more would you need to know?

dwight

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
> "dwight" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Scott W." <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>>>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the
>>>>> one-man/one-vote thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> dwight
>>>
>>> Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating the
>>> idea that there are some of us MORE equal than others.
>>>
>>> Smacks of Animal Farm.
>>>
>>> Scott W.
>>
>> When I see a statistic at this point in the campaign season that there
>> are still something like 11% UNDECIDED...
>>
>> Yeah, I think some of us are more equal than others. What kind of a
>> drooling moron do you have to be to not make up your mind between the
>> two viable candidates?
>>
>> dwight
>
> Consider this: "I'm going to get screwed no matter who ends up in the
> White House, so which one will do me the least harm?"
>
> Got any advice?

You may have less money with the Democrats, but at least no one dies.

dwight

dwight wrote:
> "Frank ess" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> dwight wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> When I see a statistic at this point in the campaign season that
>>> there are still something like 11% UNDECIDED...
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think some of us are more equal than others. What kind of
>>> a drooling moron do you have to be to not make up your mind
>>> between the two viable candidates?
>>>
>>
>> The kind who sees too many differing outcomes, with potentiall
>> upside and downside on each side?
>>
>> What kind of frozen brain does one have to have, to be able to
>> make up one's mind before all the information is in?
>>
>> --
>> Frank ess
>
> This is not a decision between very similar products. It's Obama
> and McCain. Could they be more different?
>
> What more would you need to know?
>

I disagree. The presidency has less influence on the future of the
country than the Congress, and it's not going to change much. Who the
figurehead may make a difference in tone and style, but not in
substance. Those dufusses who let Mr Bush become King B are more
responsible than the Main Asshole himself, for the mess we are in. And
they aren't going to change much.

I answered your question. Will you answer mine?

--
Frank ess

"dwight" > wrote in
:

> "Joe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "dwight" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Scott W." <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>>>>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the
>>>>>> one-man/one-vote thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dwight
>>>>
>>>> Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating
the
>>>> idea that there are some of us MORE equal than others.
>>>>
>>>> Smacks of Animal Farm.
>>>>
>>>> Scott W.
>>>
>>> When I see a statistic at this point in the campaign season that
there
>>> are still something like 11% UNDECIDED...
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think some of us are more equal than others. What kind of a
>>> drooling moron do you have to be to not make up your mind between
the
>>> two viable candidates?
>>>
>>> dwight
>>
>> Consider this: "I'm going to get screwed no matter who ends up in the
>> White House, so which one will do me the least harm?"
>>
>> Got any advice?
>
> You may have less money with the Democrats, but at least no one dies.
>
> dwight

I hope you're going for a joke there...

dwight wrote:
> "Joe" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "dwight" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Scott W." <69ta_mustangatcomcastdotcom> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> "dwight" > wrote in
>>>>>> If you ask me, the whole problem with democracy is the
>>>>>> one-man/one-vote thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dwight
>>>>
>>>> Just caught this one. It certainly sounds like you're advocating the
>>>> idea that there are some of us MORE equal than others.
>>>>
>>>> Smacks of Animal Farm.
>>>>
>>>> Scott W.
>>>
>>> When I see a statistic at this point in the campaign season that there
>>> are still something like 11% UNDECIDED...
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think some of us are more equal than others. What kind of a
>>> drooling moron do you have to be to not make up your mind between the
>>> two viable candidates?
>>>
>>> dwight
>>
>> Consider this: "I'm going to get screwed no matter who ends up in the
>> White House, so which one will do me the least harm?"
>>
>> Got any advice?
>
> You may have less money with the Democrats, but at least no one dies.

Does this include terrorists?