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

Joe wrote:
> 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.

The variable for the oil companies is they could make more profit from
less expensive oil if domestic production increases. Right now they are
paying $115/barrel for imported oil with no production costs. If they
drill at a cost of even $50/barrel and the world's cost for oil remains
at say $80/barrel they are able to make more money. Right now the
government makes it too difficult to produce, or outright prohibits,
domestic oil exploration and extraction. The kink in this model are the
Arabs. It only costs them $2/barrel to suck oil out of the ground so
they have lots of leeway to affect prices and they might drop prices to
keep us from embarking on seriously increasing domestic oil production.

The greenies have no problem making us suffer for decades, or
indefinitely, with high energy prices and they are to much in control of
the Democrats to risk voting in Obama along with Reid and Pelosi running
Congress. IMO, we will have $6-$7 per gallon gas in two years if these
extremely liberal Democrats are in complete control.

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?
>
> dwight
>
>

When I see the average person on the street can not answer 4
relatively simple civics type questions correctly or even come close in
some cases, yeah...

--


"While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe
on the other side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere
in between asking the eternal question, "What the ****?" - TFrog93

dwight wrote:

>>> 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
>
>

Actually they *could* it could be him or Hilly vs Ron Paul. That
would pretty much be night and day. IMHO I see Ohbomba and Cainy as
roughly the same superficially on the major issues.

--


"While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe
on the other side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere
in between asking the eternal question, "What the ****?" - TFrog93

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.
>
> dwight
>
>

I definitely wouldn't bet on that. It'll just be different segments
being targeted.

--


"While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe
on the other side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere
in between asking the eternal question, "What the ****?" - TFrog93

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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?

Do you mean the actual terrorists, or just the guys who drive them around?

dwight

"Frank ess" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> 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

There is no Countdown to Decision. If it's not a snap judgement, then it's
an evolutionary process, based upon the available information at any one
moment.

The campaign has been ongoing for more than a year, with less than three
months to go. There is enough information out there about both candidates to
make an informed decision. While we may not have ALL of the information, we
have enough to make a rudimentary predictive analysis and, as I've said,
there is enough difference between the two candidates to make this decision
even easier.

We make decisions constantly "before all of the information is in." This is
not a sign of a frozen brain, but quite the reverse - a dynamic,
think-on-the-fly, snapshot-in-time brain.

Okay, I answered your question. Now, again, on August 14, 2008, what more
would you need to know?

dwight

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

> Joe wrote:
>> wrote in
>> news:e6f874a7-d4a7-4cd2-a0de-839817fb2b49
@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>> 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.
>
> The variable for the oil companies is they could make more profit from
> less expensive oil if domestic production increases. Right now they
> are paying $115/barrel for imported oil with no production costs. If
> they drill at a cost of even $50/barrel and the world's cost for oil
> remains at say $80/barrel they are able to make more money. Right now
> the government makes it too difficult to produce, or outright
> prohibits, domestic oil exploration and extraction. The kink in this
> model are the Arabs. It only costs them $2/barrel to suck oil out of
> the ground so they have lots of leeway to affect prices and they might
> drop prices to keep us from embarking on seriously increasing domestic
> oil production.
>
> The greenies have no problem making us suffer for decades, or
> indefinitely, with high energy prices and they are to much in control
> of the Democrats to risk voting in Obama along with Reid and Pelosi
> running Congress. IMO, we will have $6-$7 per gallon gas in two years
> if these extremely liberal Democrats are in complete control.

I don't think they'll have anything near "complete control", only
because there are still enough Republican curmudgeons around to stifle
them. Look how hard it's been for them to override Bush.

OTOH, this will cause a logjam where nothing gets done because the two
sides are usually so far apart. Seems that the term "bipartisan" has
been dropped from the vocabulary.

"dwight" > wrote in
:

> "Frank ess" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> There is no Countdown to Decision. If it's not a snap judgement, then
> it's an evolutionary process, based upon the available information at
> any one moment.
>
> The campaign has been ongoing for more than a year, with less than
> three months to go. There is enough information out there about both
> candidates to make an informed decision. While we may not have ALL of
> the information, we have enough to make a rudimentary predictive
> analysis and, as I've said, there is enough difference between the two
> candidates to make this decision even easier.
>
> We make decisions constantly "before all of the information is in."
> This is not a sign of a frozen brain, but quite the reverse - a
> dynamic, think-on-the-fly, snapshot-in-time brain.
>
> Okay, I answered your question. Now, again, on August 14, 2008, what
> more would you need to know?
>
> dwight

Here's what I need to know - where are these guys on this issue:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opi...0,331515.story

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> 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?
>
> Do you mean the actual terrorists, or just the guys who drive them around?

Is there a difference between them? The guy that drives the suicide
bomber to the market might as well take a dirt nap too.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>> wrote in
>>> news:e6f874a7-d4a7-4cd2-a0de-839817fb2b49
> @v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com
>>> :
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> The variable for the oil companies is they could make more profit from
>> less expensive oil if domestic production increases. Right now they
>> are paying $115/barrel for imported oil with no production costs. If
>> they drill at a cost of even $50/barrel and the world's cost for oil
>> remains at say $80/barrel they are able to make more money. Right now
>> the government makes it too difficult to produce, or outright
>> prohibits, domestic oil exploration and extraction. The kink in this
>> model are the Arabs. It only costs them $2/barrel to suck oil out of
>> the ground so they have lots of leeway to affect prices and they might
>> drop prices to keep us from embarking on seriously increasing domestic
>> oil production.
>>
>> The greenies have no problem making us suffer for decades, or
>> indefinitely, with high energy prices and they are to much in control
>> of the Democrats to risk voting in Obama along with Reid and Pelosi
>> running Congress. IMO, we will have $6-$7 per gallon gas in two years
>> if these extremely liberal Democrats are in complete control.
>
> I don't think they'll have anything near "complete control", only
> because there are still enough Republican curmudgeons around to stifle
> them. Look how hard it's been for them to override Bush.

All the talking heads expect the Democrats to pick up seats in the House
and Senate. The House operates on a straight up majority. Now if the
Dems get 60 or more seats in the Senate it doesn't matter what the
Republicans do. They can't stop anything at that point. Then we are
going to see a run of ultra liberal legislation that will make the New
Deal look like nothing. It won't just be an assault on your wallet
either. It will affect freedom of speech, heck freedoms in general, the
quality of health care, gun rights and a whole host of other
environmental regulations that will kill off what is left of domestic
energy production. Then they will start spending money like drunken
sailors on ear marks, ultra expensive alternative energy programs,
welfare, schools etc. They will try their best to move us toward
socialism as fast as they can get away with it.

> OTOH, this will cause a logjam where nothing gets done because the two
> sides are usually so far apart. Seems that the term "bipartisan" has
> been dropped from the vocabulary.

Sometimes the gridlock it a good thing. Especially when the people
elected to represent us are too greedy, and/or stupid to do what is good
and right for the country.