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

dwight wrote:

[ ... ]

>
> 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

You may be right. Nevertheless, I'd like the candidates to be explicit
as to what they'll do about the circumstance Joe brought in:


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


I am really offended by the Congress's lack of spine in dealing with
Iraq's income and failure to participate in their own reconstruction.

I think there is a good chance that between now and election day, one
of those guys is going to explode in some pertinent way, either
enhancing or destroying his potential as a president. We'll see.

--
Frank ess

Michael Johnson > wrote in news:8_
:

> 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.

The pendulum continues to swing...

But seriously folks, it's the Democrats' turn to hang themselves. The
Republicans have had years to screw things up (and boy, have they!). So
it may very well be time to see what kind of damage the Democrats can
do. As I've said, it all comes down to the lesser of two evils.

>> 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.

That's been the case for quite a while with both parties.

Michael, I believe you alluded to it earlier - we really need a major
change in the way politics works. The basic structure is pretty much
broken.

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

That was a reference to Osama's driver, of course. We got THAT suckah!

And I'm sure bin Laden will show up some day, too.

)

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in news:8_
> :
>
>> 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.
>
> The pendulum continues to swing...
>
> But seriously folks, it's the Democrats' turn to hang themselves. The
> Republicans have had years to screw things up (and boy, have they!). So
> it may very well be time to see what kind of damage the Democrats can
> do. As I've said, it all comes down to the lesser of two evils.

The country can only withstand so much damage. The best course of
action we can hope for is gridlock so neither side can do any more harm.
IMO, the direction the Democrats like Pelosi, Reid and Obama want to
take us is toward socialism. We have seen that socialism just doesn't
work. Also, once they start the ball rolling on all these new
entitlement programs it will be almost impossible to to stop it let
alone reverse it. Then the only thing they can do is raise taxes more
and more to pay for them. Unless people like you and I roll into our
retirement years with a big bag of our own money we are going to be
living a bare minimum existence just waiting on death to get any relief.

>>> 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.
>
> That's been the case for quite a while with both parties.
>
> Michael, I believe you alluded to it earlier - we really need a major
> change in the way politics works. The basic structure is pretty much
> broken.

It is going to take some MAJOR breakdown in our way of life before the
population gets off its collective ass and makes real change happen. By
then the Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the Republicans may have us
screwed so bad there are no alternatives left. Either way we are
getting EXACTLY what we deserve for being so apathetic for decades. I
wouldn't blame the younger people if they just told all the Baby Boomers
that when they retire they will be euthanized since they squandered all
the money that was to go toward their retirement costs.

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> 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.
>
> That was a reference to Osama's driver, of course. We got THAT suckah!

I did get that reference. He got off easier than I figured he would.
Something like 5.5 years with credit for time served so he has another 5
months or so. Another five months at the Gitmo CC should be a breeze to
complete. They could have turned him over to the Pakistanis and never
been heard from again.

> And I'm sure bin Laden will show up some day, too.

Don't get me started on him. I have all kinds of theories as to why he
isn't taking a dirt nap by now.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> dwight wrote:
> >
> > That was a reference to Osama's driver, of course. We got THAT suckah!
>
> I did get that reference. He got off easier than I figured he would.
> Something like 5.5 years with credit for time served so he has another 5
> months or so. Another five months at the Gitmo CC should be a breeze to
> complete. They could have turned him over to the Pakistanis and never
> been heard from again.
>
> > And I'm sure bin Laden will show up some day, too.
>
> Don't get me started on him. I have all kinds of theories as to why he
> isn't taking a dirt nap by now.

<grin>
"Capturing Osama" has become quite an indusry, hasn't it? Oh my yes, we're
trying real hard to _look like_ we're trying real hard to catch that ol'
dog.

<Maxwell Smart voice> "missed him by _that_ much."
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.
'00 Cobra R

John C. wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>>> That was a reference to Osama's driver, of course. We got THAT suckah!
>> I did get that reference. He got off easier than I figured he would.
>> Something like 5.5 years with credit for time served so he has another 5
>> months or so. Another five months at the Gitmo CC should be a breeze to
>> complete. They could have turned him over to the Pakistanis and never
>> been heard from again.
>>
>>> And I'm sure bin Laden will show up some day, too.
>> Don't get me started on him. I have all kinds of theories as to why he
>> isn't taking a dirt nap by now.
>
> <grin>
> "Capturing Osama" has become quite an indusry, hasn't it? Oh my yes, we're
> trying real hard to _look like_ we're trying real hard to catch that ol'
> dog.

I don't profess to know the truth about why he hasn't caught the
business end of a smart bomb but I can think of some credible reasons
why he hasn't. They range from the righteous to the cynical. Of all of
them I think the least plausible is that he can hide himself effectively
for seven years.

Michael Johnson > wrote in
:

<major snippage>

> It is going to take some MAJOR breakdown in our way of life before the
> population gets off its collective ass and makes real change happen.
> By then the Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the Republicans may
> have us screwed so bad there are no alternatives left. Either way we
> are getting EXACTLY what we deserve for being so apathetic for
> decades. I wouldn't blame the younger people if they just told all
> the Baby Boomers that when they retire they will be euthanized since
> they squandered all the money that was to go toward their retirement
> costs.

Saw an interview with Andrew J. Bacevich last night on Bill Moyers'
Journal on PBS. Absolutely riveting, and that's not an exaggeration.

Bacevich is highly accredited and tells the real story - he is right on
the money IMO.

Here's a preview of what he's all about:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
> <major snippage>
>
>> It is going to take some MAJOR breakdown in our way of life before the
>> population gets off its collective ass and makes real change happen.
>> By then the Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the Republicans may
>> have us screwed so bad there are no alternatives left. Either way we
>> are getting EXACTLY what we deserve for being so apathetic for
>> decades. I wouldn't blame the younger people if they just told all
>> the Baby Boomers that when they retire they will be euthanized since
>> they squandered all the money that was to go toward their retirement
>> costs.
>
> Saw an interview with Andrew J. Bacevich last night on Bill Moyers'
> Journal on PBS. Absolutely riveting, and that's not an exaggeration.
>
> Bacevich is highly accredited and tells the real story - he is right on
> the money IMO.
>
> Here's a preview of what he's all about:
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html

It sounds interesting. I agree that our biggest threats come from
within our own borders and I'll go even further and say they come from
the very politicians we elect to solve our problems. It wouldn't take
them more than a year to pass all the legislation needed to right the
ship. It will take years to actually make it happen but to set the
framework for it would be easy. I think there needs to be a fundamental
change in our political structure and it needs to start with term
limits. I think career politicians are killing this country.

Joe wrote:
> Michael Johnson > wrote in
> :
>
> <major snippage>
>
>> It is going to take some MAJOR breakdown in our way of life before
>> the population gets off its collective ass and makes real change
>> happen. By then the Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the
>> Republicans may have us screwed so bad there are no alternatives
>> left. Either way we are getting EXACTLY what we deserve for being
>> so apathetic for decades. I wouldn't blame the younger people if
>> they just told all the Baby Boomers that when they retire they
>> will be euthanized since they squandered all the money that was to
>> go toward their retirement costs.
>
> Saw an interview with Andrew J. Bacevich last night on Bill Moyers'
> Journal on PBS. Absolutely riveting, and that's not an
> exaggeration.
>
> Bacevich is highly accredited and tells the real story - he is
> right on the money IMO.
>
> Here's a preview of what he's all about:
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html

The guy did seem to have the ducks in a row; his and every one else's.

--
Frank ess