Chrysler sells all 6400 Dodge Challenger muscle cars

wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:25:30 -0700, Peter Franks >
> wrote:
>
>> It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and sharing
>> way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.
>>

If you need this much micro managing and regiment in your daily life,
you're needing to find a country that can offer it..... The USA was
never designed to have society ruled from the TOP DOWN.


> Sounds like Communism, that didn't work where tried either. We will
> always be constrained by societal boundaries, arbitrary or not.

wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:25:30 -0700, Peter Franks >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> I live in Las Vegas. Yes, it is a desert. BTW, we aren't complaining,
>> but we are concerned.
>>
> When I was there in March ya`all sure as hell where.

Really? What is meant by "ya`all"?

>> Pretty much ANY place on this planet has problems of one sort or
>> another. Virginia is no great place either -- I know, I lived there.
>>
> Of course every place will have one problem or another, but picking a
> place to live that isn't able to naturally support its population
> isn't all that wise.

Name any place that is naturally able to support its population.

>> It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and sharing
>> way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.
>>
> Sounds like Communism, that didn't work where tried either. We will
> always be constrained by societal boundaries, arbitrary or not.

I said cooperation. Our chance at success is limited by arbitrary
boundaries.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I live in Las Vegas. Yes, it is a desert. BTW, we aren't
>> complaining, but we are concerned.
>>
>> Pretty much ANY place on this planet has problems of one sort or
>> another. Virginia is no great place either -- I know, I lived there.
>>
>> It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and
>> sharing way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.
>
> At least I don't have to water my grass in Virginia except for a few
> weeks in August. IMO, every area of the country has its own brand of
> beauty and my comments never said desert areas are ugly. My point is
> they are not optimal for large scale human habitation. I'm not saying
> that people shouldn't have a choice to live in desert areas but many of
> these environmentalists use the Southwest, in general, to try and scare
> the rest of the country into thinking they too have a water shortage.
> This just isn't true.

Ok, then name a place that IS optimal for large scale human habitation.

> If it weren't for colossal civil engineering projects (BTW, I am a civil
> engineer) controlling stormwater runoff, very few people would occupy
> the Southwest. There will come a point, IMO, where the number of people
> living in this part of the country will be restricted as there is a
> limited amount of water that they can utilize to support a given
> population level.

I look at it this way: thanks to the ingenuity of man, we have areas
that are much more habitable.

<Poetic Justice >> wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:25:30 -0700, Peter Franks >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and sharing
> >> way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.
> >>
>
> If you need this much micro managing and regiment in your daily life,
> you're needing to find a country that can offer it..... The USA was
> never designed to have society ruled from the TOP DOWN.
>
What ever happened to the good old days 30 years-ago in California, during
when someone ****ed you off in a bumper-to-bumper on a free way, you just
pulled out a hand gun and straigtened things out by shooting a few rounds
off?

Thems was the times!

Roedy Green wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 07:38:32 -0700 (PDT), "$27 TRILLION to pay for
> Kyoto" > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>> 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."
>
> put the tax on gasoline. Burning gas is what causes the damage.
>
> Now that demand is growing faster than supply, the prices are going to
> skyrocket anyway. The money might as well go to the government as
> Exxon. At least then there is some home of tax relief elsewhere.


The money goes to stock holders and they are IRA/401K retirement
accounts(the Little Guy), you Liberals are so stupid that you pilfer
Social Security and now you want to pilfer the *Private retirement*
accounts, all in the name of getting another tax so Government can grow
even more.

Taking money off the top of corporate earnings, hurts the working
people. Once again Liberalism attacks the hard working people and wants
to give our money to *Government* and freeloaders who *contribute zero*
to the *economic health* of the NATION.

> wrote:
> Sounds like Communism, that didn't work where tried either. We will
> always be constrained by societal boundaries, arbitrary or not.
>
Everything sounds like Communism when you watch The O'Reilly Factor.

Don't eat cheese!

<Poetic Justice >> wrote:
> Taking money off the top of corporate earnings, hurts the working
> people. Once again Liberalism attacks the hard working people and wants
> to give our money to *Government* and freeloaders who *contribute zero*
> to the *economic health* of the NATION.
>
Yeah, and GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda in Canada do better assembling
automobiles in Canada due to "national health care".

GM, America's biggest corporation, is sucking because they pay for the ****.

Meanwhile, GM Canada does a lot better because Canada has single payer.

Sorry man, I was just in Spartansburg all last week. The only reason BMW
does well there is due to "low wages".

Toyota and Honda in Canada? They're not UAW or CAW union, but are payed the
same.

More than Yanks.

America's answer to globalism is to be paid as if they were bare footed
chinks in a factory in China. And they're making BMW's.

John Harding wrote:
> <Poetic Justice >> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:25:30 -0700, Peter Franks >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and sharing
>>>> way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.
>>>>
>> If you need this much micro managing and regiment in your daily life,
>> you're needing to find a country that can offer it..... The USA was
>> never designed to have society ruled from the TOP DOWN.
>>
> What ever happened to the good old days 30 years-ago in California, during
> when someone ****ed you off in a bumper-to-bumper on a free way, you just
> pulled out a hand gun and straigtened things out by shooting a few rounds
> off?
>
> Thems was the times!
>

You mean the time before ROAD RAGE was common place...

Now people just keep an extra gallon of diesel in the car and a
disposable lighter to straighten out lousy drivers. Life sure gets
better with more liberal laws doesn't it. Tire irons, baseball bats,
chains....

We need a few more laws about our cars and some more taxes to make life
better so a few more people will go over the edge from all the stress
and aggravation.

<Poetic Justice >> wrote:
> > <Poetic Justice >> wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 18:25:30 -0700, Peter Franks >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and sharing
> >>>> way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.
> >>>>
> >> If you need this much micro managing and regiment in your daily life,
> >> you're needing to find a country that can offer it..... The USA was
> >> never designed to have society ruled from the TOP DOWN.
> >>
> > What ever happened to the good old days 30 years-ago in California, during
> > when someone ****ed you off in a bumper-to-bumper on a free way, you just
> > pulled out a hand gun and straigtened things out by shooting a few rounds
> > off?
> >
> > Thems was the times!
> >
>
> You mean the time before ROAD RAGE was common place...
>
>
Boy, that was during the deep and heady days of line ups for petrol, when a
Ford Pinto was a family car, not a grenade!

Ah! But I did own a 5 litre Gremlin 5 speed.

Next to the 327 ci small block Chevy Malibu I drove in high school, it ruled!


Those were the days!

Peter Franks wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I live in Las Vegas. Yes, it is a desert. BTW, we aren't
>>> complaining, but we are concerned.
>>>
>>> Pretty much ANY place on this planet has problems of one sort or
>>> another. Virginia is no great place either -- I know, I lived there.
>>>
>>> It all comes down to resource management -- in a cooperative and
>>> sharing way that isn't bound by arbitrary societal boundaries.
>>
>> At least I don't have to water my grass in Virginia except for a few
>> weeks in August. IMO, every area of the country has its own brand of
>> beauty and my comments never said desert areas are ugly. My point is
>> they are not optimal for large scale human habitation. I'm not saying
>> that people shouldn't have a choice to live in desert areas but many
>> of these environmentalists use the Southwest, in general, to try and
>> scare the rest of the country into thinking they too have a water
>> shortage. This just isn't true.
>
> Ok, then name a place that IS optimal for large scale human habitation.

Well, Virginia is a good start. The Eastern half of the United States
has water, wood, tillable soil as the very basics to support large
population and it does as a large portion of the country's population
lives there.

>> If it weren't for colossal civil engineering projects (BTW, I am a
>> civil engineer) controlling stormwater runoff, very few people would
>> occupy the Southwest. There will come a point, IMO, where the number
>> of people living in this part of the country will be restricted as
>> there is a limited amount of water that they can utilize to support a
>> given population level.
>
> I look at it this way: thanks to the ingenuity of man, we have areas
> that are much more habitable.

No doubt. It makes me proud to be a civil engineer. It also makes us,
as a whole, very vulnerable to anything that disrupts the functioning of
our technology to a large extent.