Sad day for America
in [Toyota]
|
From: dr_jeff on 30 Mar 2010 11:09 C. E. White wrote: > "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message > news:4bb0f2d0$0$19678$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >> Get real, the most traded vehicles were 1980 to 1987 Ford Explorers, >> dummy > > Mike, at least go read the list of most traded in vehicles. None were > 1980 to 1987 Explorers - which should be obvious since the Ford > Explorer SUVs weren't intriduced until 1990 (for the 1991 Model Year). > There were special models of full size pickups that were "Explorer" > models but they aren't the SUVs and they aren't on the list. > > Ed > > Will you please stop it? Mike doesn't care about facts. If it exists in Mike's mind, that's good enough for him. Reality be damned! Jeff
From: C. E. White on 30 Mar 2010 11:38 "Obveeus" <Obveeus(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:hoqllr$ska$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote in message > news:4bb0d0b7$0$19650$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... >> What color is the sky in YOUR world? Most 25 year old Toyotas are >> in the junk yards as rusted hulks LOL > > Very few of the Cash For Clunkers cars were 25 year old models, > though many of the newer Toyota models were not eligible simply > because they already got good gas mileage. In the end, 5 of the top > 10 most junked cars were FORD, 3 Mopar and 2 Chevy. But that is mostly becasue people were trading in old trucks and SUVs. Ford sold more of those in the 90's than anyone else, so it isn't surprising that they were popular models to trade in. Wouldn't you like $4500 for a 14 year old Explorer? Or a 14 year old 4Runner? There were just lots of old Explorers out there. If I had one, I'd have traded it in. Ed
From: Mike Hunter on 30 Mar 2010 12:34 In other words you think it is a good idea for the GOVERNMENT to control what or where YOU choose to eat, or what YOU choose to buy? How about where you live or what you say, is that a good idea as well? Try doing a search of the governments powers in Germany in 1939, dummy You are even more of a lefty loon then I suspected. IF you were still alive in 2084 you likely would be first in line to buy the book. Do you realize some of the outrageous things predict in 1984 already have, or soon will, come to pass....dr_jeff? "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:14udnfMiOLYljy_WnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> Want more government regulations? You have not seen anything yet, wait >> till the government totally takes over our health care in 2014. >> >> It has already begun! The Government that CURRENTLY regulates >> trans-fats is trying to tax the "sugary" drinks that are killing our >> children. > > They regulate drugs, requiring that the meet certain purity and > effectiveness standards. They regulate doctors, teachers and other > professionals, requiring that they don't have a serious criminal history > before they can go into the clinic or classroom. What a horror? What's > next? Requiring that priests don't molest children? And what right does > the federal government have to make sure that cars are safe? The nerve of > the government. > >> Next will come smoking regulations. One local major employer announced >> today they will test all new workers for nicotine, if you have it in your >> system they will not give you a job because it will further increase >> their health care costs under the new bill. > > That's a local employer taking its health-care costs in its own hands. > Should we regulate that, too? > >> Three major US manufactures are telling us their health care cost will go >> up by millions of dollars a year, which will lead to higher prices for >> their products. What next will they not employ any new employees who are >> overweight? The federal government will start controlling what we eat >> for the same reasons. Can government control of the use of alcohol be >> far behind? > > Well, if a business stops hiring fat people, isn't that the business's > decision? Are you saying we should regulate businesses? > > What if it is one of those three major US manufacturers? That would help > lower their health-care costs. > > That alcohol regulation would be good for you and stop your drunken rants. > >> Not only will the government be telling you what you can eat, wait to >> you see what happens to your privilege to DRIVE when they start to >> restrict driving, or what you can drive to reduce the number injured on >> killed on our highways. > > Legally, I may not drive a tractor-trailer, school bus or motorcycle. You > think this is a bad thing? > >> I suspect we will see a new "1984" book written called "2084," total >> government control of the lives of all those still alive at the time. >> LOL > > Yeah, right. > >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > >>> There is a big difference between good regulation and stupidity. Banks >>> encouraged to make loans that can't be repaid is stupidity. >>> >>> Jeff >>
From: Bill Putney on 30 Mar 2010 17:27 Mike Hunter wrote: > Next will come smoking regulations. One local major employer announced > today they will test all new workers for nicotine, if you have it in your > system they will not give you a job... > .The federal government will start controlling what we eat for > the same reasons...Not only will the government be telling you what you can eat,... Wait a minute! Can we combine those two concepts? Can we pass a bill bar people who smoke from being in the government . . . and make it retroactive? All in the name of promoting good health you understand. :) -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Bill Putney on 30 Mar 2010 17:37
C. E. White wrote: > "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in message > news:81cvj0F2g1U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Obveeus wrote: >> >>> ...Of course, if you wanted to get rid of an old Toyota you were >>> likely out of luck since old Toyotas got such good gas mileage that >>> you would have had to buy an electric/hybrid vehicle in order to >>> see a 'clunkers' qualifying level of improvement. >> That whole thing was a scam. I looked up my '85 F150 on the web >> site, and it didn't qualify because the fuel mileage figure on it >> was 21 mpg. Anybody who has ever owned one of those knows that that >> truck never would get above 13 mpg on its best day. How many other >> vehicles were listed with stupidly wrong figures like that? (BTW - >> I never would have traded it in - I looked it up out of curiosity - >> plus I think the whole program was immoral.) > > I don't know about your 1985 F150, but my 1992 4.9L Automatic F150 > would average over 18 in mostly highway driving. Around the farm the > mileage dropped to the mid teens, but my overall average for the 14 > years I owned it was well over 16 mpg. > > Ed Mine has the 4.9, but the granny gear transmission. The lists didn't deal with any options such as that, so it was a one size fits all oversimplification. -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |