Chrysler sells all 6400 Dodge Challenger muscle cars

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."

Canada would tax you for wiping your own ass if they could and they
probably do in some form or fashion so don't expect the gas guzzler tax
to go away any time soon. Chrysler had better get to work and develop
some new cars because they can't live off the 300C forever. They need
to sell cars by the hundreds of thousands and not 6,400 at a time. If
Chrysler was smart they would be offering a plug in hybrid that seats
four comfortably and gets 100-150 miles on a charge. They couldn't make
them fast enough to meet the demand, IMO.

$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."
>

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.

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.

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.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm

Nature can't hear your excu$e$.

On May 9, 1:05 pm, 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?

Because I know how people use muscle cars and they don't drive them
daily, except in rare circumstances. Wear and tear being a good
reason not to.

$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto wrote:
> On May 9, 1:05 pm, 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?
>
> Because I know how people use muscle cars and they don't drive them
> daily, except in rare circumstances. Wear and tear being a good
> reason not to.

6400 cars = chump change

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?

Ouroboros_Rex wrote:
> $27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto wrote:
>> On May 9, 1:05 pm, 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?
>> Because I know how people use muscle cars and they don't drive them
>> daily, except in rare circumstances. Wear and tear being a good
>> reason not to.
>
> 6400 cars = chump change

...... and it sure as hell won't keep Chrysler in the black.

$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto wrote:
> On May 9, 1:05 pm, 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?
>
> Because I know how people use muscle cars and they don't drive them
> daily, except in rare circumstances. Wear and tear being a good
> reason not to.

Well, You're wrong there.

--

"I've also noted that a couple of my regular spammers
have pretty much switched over to phishing and 419s
from pecker pills and sawdust tablets." - Bar0

"If it's from BRNIC, it's GOT to be blocked" - Buss Error

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.

These endless debates about whether and how to manage man-made
greenhouse gas production are completely pointless. The West could
park every car, close off every gas pipeline, and shut down every
fossil fuel powerplant tomorrow and it would not reduce the current
325 ppm concentration of CO2 for 100 years. It would not even stop the
increase. At the same time, such a measure -- or even the 20 to 80%
aspirational goals the alarmists bandy about -- would condemn the
entire world to economic collapse. Also at the same time, the
"consensus" scientists predict that the current 325 ppm concentration
of CO2 is already sufficient to guarantee catastrophic climate change.

Therefore a program of adaptaion is the only reasonable response.
Where are the alarmists on the issue of adaptation? I'll tell you
whe in denial. It's not nearly as much fun to do something
constructive in the real world, somethng that doesn't include the huge
measure of the self-righteous, quasi-theological posturing and state
control that the Greenies invariably favor. That's what Greenism is
after all, a religion. It's not about achieving results in the real
world. It's about doing "God's work," living a virtuous life, with
the only reward a spiritual one. Also, the right to heap scorn on
your sinful neighbors.

180 Out

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.

> These endless debates about whether and how to manage man-made
> greenhouse gas production are completely pointless. The West could
> park every car, close off every gas pipeline, and shut down every
> fossil fuel powerplant tomorrow and it would not reduce the current
> 325 ppm concentration of CO2 for 100 years. It would not even stop the
> increase. At the same time, such a measure -- or even the 20 to 80%
> aspirational goals the alarmists bandy about -- would condemn the
> entire world to economic collapse. Also at the same time, the
> "consensus" scientists predict that the current 325 ppm concentration
> of CO2 is already sufficient to guarantee catastrophic climate change.

To quote Rev. Wright, the chickens are coming home to roost for the
global warming idiots. Average temperatures haven't increased since
1998 and they are declining. All these hi-tech computer models got it
wrong when it comes to CO2's effect on climate. Last month was the 29th
coolest in the past 115 years. Do you notice now the term global
warming is being replaced with climate change? Why do you think that is
occurring? It is because global warming is no longer happening and they
need a new term to shove down our throats and mislead the public.

> Therefore a program of adaptaion is the only reasonable response.
> Where are the alarmists on the issue of adaptation? I'll tell you
> whe in denial. It's not nearly as much fun to do something
> constructive in the real world, somethng that doesn't include the huge
> measure of the self-righteous, quasi-theological posturing and state
> control that the Greenies invariably favor. That's what Greenism is
> after all, a religion. It's not about achieving results in the real
> world. It's about doing "God's work," living a virtuous life, with
> the only reward a spiritual one. Also, the right to heap scorn on
> your sinful neighbors.

All one has to do it look at climate change over the course of human's
time here on Earth to see that change IS the natural process. These
environmental idiots think they can predict climate 100 years from now
with 10-20 years of data. Hell, they can't tell me if it will rain
tomorrow. These environmental wackos are lead around by people like Al
Gore who only cares about making millions playing the fear card. How
many "doomsday" scenarios have these people played on us over the past
50 years? More than I can remember. I think the "cry wolf" syndrome
has finally sunk in to most of us regarding these people. 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.