gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> > SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
> > and coupes.
>
> No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
> market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
> and foreign aid expenditures.
>
> Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.
>
The US didn't invade Iraq for the oil. In any case, the cost of oil is
going up which should cause Americans to seek better efficiencies. That
is what you are claiming will work, isn't it?



--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

Dave Head wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:45:01 -0400, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
> >
> >And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
> >traction control, etc. were they available.
> >
> >nate
>
> Me me me me me....
>
> I haven't needed air bags in any of my cars since I started driving. And,
> thanks to the air bag, if I ever do have an accident on a road rally, I'm
> probably going to die 'cuz the road rally computer is between me and the air
> bag, since I navigate and sit in the right seat. There's just no other place
> to put it, and that air bag will pick it up and jam it thru my teeth. Our only
> chance is _not_ to have an accident.
>
I can't believe that you'd have an airbag in such a circumstance. First
of all, if you don't crash while rallying, you aren't really trying hard
enough. The co-driver certainly can get hurt compared to the driver
since the driver has to remember the rule, hold on to the steering
wheel.



> Traction control? Something else to go wrong. If I can't keep the damn thing
> going straight with my driving skills, I don't _deserve_ to not crash. Traction
> control is for incompetents and wimps.
>
It also makes it hard to throw the rear end out and drift around the
corner.



> And... I don't like antilock brakes, either...
>
Similar problems.

On Jun 15, 8:35 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >> In article >, Shawn Hirn
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
> >> > and coupes.
>
> >> No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
> >> market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
> >> and foreign aid expenditures.
>
> >> Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.
>
> > That's an interesting strategy. Were it not for the fact that there's
> > more likelihood of the moon reversing its orbit around the earth than
> > for congress to stop protecting big oil interests, you might have a
> > point there.
>
> The chance of making CAFE work is MUCH less.
>
> > When the ideas of making seat belts mandatory and better bumpers
> > mandatory equipment in cars were first floated in congress, the big auto
> > companies all hemmed and hawed that it would cut into profits. Same with
> > making air bags mandatory, but now every car company would not think of
> > offering a car without those features, even if the feds allowed it.
>
> Even though this is not relevant, the automakers had a well founded
> logical argument but it's not what you say it was.
>
> In the late 1950s Ford had made a big effort to sell safety and the public
> didn't buy it. This told the automakers that selling safety was flop. The
> big three also said that airbags were not wanted by the public and that
> they would _KILL_ children and small adults. Guess what? They were
> correct, the airbags do indeed kill people. How did they know this?
> Extensive testing in the late 1960s and early 1970s. GM and Chrysler each
> offered cars with airbags in the early 1970s and it was a rarely ordered
> option.
>
> You and your ilk are control freaks. Instead of letting me decide if I
> wanted explosive devices in my car, you force them in there. Get out of
> my life, get your government out of my life.
>
> As for side impact beams, dual master cylinder brake systems, etc and so
> forth, well times change, buyers wants change. Safety does sell now. All
> the regulations could disappear and guess what? Those things would stay
> in the cars because few people would buy them without.
>
> What we need in this country is less regulation, less control, and a much
> better educated and knowledgable public. That way, control freaks
> would no longer have a place.

Oh and Buyer Beware, Mao make yummy yummy cat food.

"Brent P" > wrote
> What we need in this country is less regulation, less control, and a much
> better educated and knowledgable public. That way, control freaks
> would no longer have a place.

So, Brent, the next time someone top-posts, you won't try to
control them and make them bottom post? :->

FloydR

Floyd Rogers wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote
>
>>What we need in this country is less regulation, less control, and a much
>>better educated and knowledgable public. That way, control freaks
>>would no longer have a place.
>
>
> So, Brent, the next time someone top-posts, you won't try to
> control them and make them bottom post? :->
>
> FloydR
>
>

No, you just mock them for bottom posting, so that they can come to the
conclusion that they shouldn't bottom post themselves.

If they don't get the hint, it's a handy idiot spotting aid.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, David Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:59:57 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>>> And yet there are consumers that would gladly buy a car without airbags,
>>>> traction control, etc. were they available.
>>
>>> Fewer and fewer consumers would buy such a vehicle. Most consumers
>>> prefer to drive a reasonable safe vehicle. Just look at the sticker on
>>> any new car where the auto manufacturer touts all the safety features as
>>> if they are doing the consumer a favor by putting them there, when in
>>> fact, they are federally mandated.
>>
>>And you just destroyed your own government regulation stance and made a
>>free market argument.
>>
>
> Unless of course consumers would only start to expect such things
> after they were mandated.

There is a wide variety of such things people buy without mandate right
now making that moot.

In article >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>
>> > SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
>> > and coupes.
>>
>> No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
>> market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
>> and foreign aid expenditures.
>>
>> Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.
>>
> The US didn't invade Iraq for the oil.

To keep the taps off and drive prices up. Remember, Saddam Hussain became
an enemy of the US when he started over pumping. It was all down hill
from there.

> In any case, the cost of oil is
> going up which should cause Americans to seek better efficiencies. That
> is what you are claiming will work, isn't it?

Hybrids had been selling for over sticker until production caught up....

In article . com>, JG wrote:
> On Jun 15, 8:35 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article >, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >> In article >, Shawn Hirn
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
>> >> > and coupes.
>>
>> >> No. CAFE must be scrapped entirely. Then the government needs to end the
>> >> market protections for big oil and stop subsidizing big oil with military
>> >> and foreign aid expenditures.
>>
>> >> Getting back to a free market is the only thing that can fix this mess.
>>
>> > That's an interesting strategy. Were it not for the fact that there's
>> > more likelihood of the moon reversing its orbit around the earth than
>> > for congress to stop protecting big oil interests, you might have a
>> > point there.
>>
>> The chance of making CAFE work is MUCH less.
>>
>> > When the ideas of making seat belts mandatory and better bumpers
>> > mandatory equipment in cars were first floated in congress, the big auto
>> > companies all hemmed and hawed that it would cut into profits. Same with
>> > making air bags mandatory, but now every car company would not think of
>> > offering a car without those features, even if the feds allowed it.
>>
>> Even though this is not relevant, the automakers had a well founded
>> logical argument but it's not what you say it was.
>>
>> In the late 1950s Ford had made a big effort to sell safety and the public
>> didn't buy it. This told the automakers that selling safety was flop. The
>> big three also said that airbags were not wanted by the public and that
>> they would _KILL_ children and small adults. Guess what? They were
>> correct, the airbags do indeed kill people. How did they know this?
>> Extensive testing in the late 1960s and early 1970s. GM and Chrysler each
>> offered cars with airbags in the early 1970s and it was a rarely ordered
>> option.
>>
>> You and your ilk are control freaks. Instead of letting me decide if I
>> wanted explosive devices in my car, you force them in there. Get out of
>> my life, get your government out of my life.
>>
>> As for side impact beams, dual master cylinder brake systems, etc and so
>> forth, well times change, buyers wants change. Safety does sell now. All
>> the regulations could disappear and guess what? Those things would stay
>> in the cars because few people would buy them without.
>>
>> What we need in this country is less regulation, less control, and a much
>> better educated and knowledgable public. That way, control freaks
>> would no longer have a place.
>
> Oh and Buyer Beware, Mao make yummy yummy cat food.

nobody said anything about removing the big sticker on the window telling
you what the fuel economy in the standard test is.

In article >, Floyd Rogers wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote
>> What we need in this country is less regulation, less control, and a much
>> better educated and knowledgable public. That way, control freaks
>> would no longer have a place.
>
> So, Brent, the next time someone top-posts, you won't try to
> control them and make them bottom post? :->

I cannot control them. But I can tell them they are being assholes by not
carrying their share of the load.

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>SUVs and pickups need to meet the same fuel economy standards as sedans
> >>>and coupes.
> >>
> >>Um, no they don't.
> >
> >
> > They don't now, but future models (say in about five years) ought to be
> > mandated to meet far better fuel economy standards.
>
> Thus making them useless. You're a genius.

Thus making them produce less pollution. The nay-sayers said the same
thing when the idea of setting fuel economy limits for cars was first
considered, but now lots of car companies are finding a hot demand for
economical cars. The fact is, if we hold the auto manufacturers to a
higher standard, they will find a way to meet that standard, assuming
its not ridiculously out of whack with reality. If Ford can put out a
hybrid SUV, why not GM, Chrysler, and the other manufacturers?