Gas price are indeed dropping around these parts, down 7c in
the past ten days to $1.629


mike hunt

 

RE/
>So, let me pose a question I've been wrestling with.
>Given a situation where one participates in a carpool, where each drives
>100+ miles round trip one or twice a week; the carpool has three-four
>good-sized folks in it (well, maybe one lardbutt, yours truly);
>
>Where one would like a quick & nimble, smallish/smaller car for the
>above-stated carpool, as opposed to a bloato-mobile; where the

Used Suburban.
--
PeteCresswell

 

In article <slrnc7eb35.hv.rogblake10@unix2.netaxs.com>,
rogblake10@iname10.com (Roger Blake) wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:40:53 GMT, George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> >Since the Constitution covers NEITHER of those two issues, I don't see
>
> The intent of the Constitution was that the only powers the national
> government would have in the U.S. would be those specifically delegated
> to it in that document.
>
> >what the Supreme Law of the Land has to do with it. Such measures would
>
> The supreme law of the land has everything to do with what powers may
> be lawfully wielded by the national government. Of course, perhaps you
> believe that government should operate in a state of anarchy, with
> no legal constraints or limits to power. (From what I have observed
> this is the mindset of most "progressives.")
>
> >be to protect the country from the slow death of overpopulation, and are
> >therefore good for the country.
>
> If you believe that is the case (I personally do not), then lobby for a
> Constitutional amendment. It is a difficult process, of course, but
> in the past has been done for reasons as idiotic as banning alcoholic
> beverages.

It didn't take a Constitutional Amendment to enact the 1965 Immigration
law, the one which has effectively opened the floodgates under which our
immigration policy now operates. I don't see why it would require a
Constitutional amendment to close those floodgates.
>
> For a good laugh, read the late 1960s book "The Limits to Growth" and
> see where some of the more hysterical "progressives" of the time thought
> we would be today.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "progressives."

--
George Graves
------------------
"If God drove a car, it would surely be an Alfa Romeo."
Juan Manuel Fangio
5-time world Grand Prix champion

 

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:37:38 GMT, George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>It didn't take a Constitutional Amendment to enact the 1965 Immigration
>law, the one which has effectively opened the floodgates under which our

The issue at hand was the forcing of American families to have only
one child, as China does. That is a very different matter than immigration
policy.

>I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "progressives."

It is how many liberals like to refer to themselves these days.

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)

 

George Graves wrote:

> In article <slrnc7d78m.s1d.rogblake10@unix2.netaxs.com>,
> rogblake10@iname10.com (Roger Blake) wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 00:57:59 GMT, George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>it. I think the US should close the gates on immigration, and start a
>>>zero-population-growth program NOW.
>>
>>Which provision of the U.S. Constitution were you planning to distort
>>in order to support such a program? Or have "progressives" reached the
>>point where they don't even give thought to a triviality such as
>>the supreme law of the land when concocting their schemes?
>
>
> Since the Constitution covers NEITHER of those two issues

Which means that the government is *not* empowered to act in such a
fashion. The Bill Of Rights states that all powers which are not
conferred onto the Federal government are retained by the states and/or
the people.

> I don't see
> what the Supreme Law of the Land has to do with it. Such measures would
> be to protect the country from the slow death of overpopulation, and are
> therefore good for the country.

So now the opinion of George Graves as to "the good of the country" is
going to become our basis for making laws? There are other people who
think "the good of the country" would be best served by getting rid of
all the Jews. Should we listen to them, too?

--
Mike Smith

 

In article <slrnc7em7v.mab.rogblake10@unix2.netaxs.com>,
rogblake10@iname10.com (Roger Blake) wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:37:38 GMT, George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> >It didn't take a Constitutional Amendment to enact the 1965 Immigration
> >law, the one which has effectively opened the floodgates under which our
>
> The issue at hand was the forcing of American families to have only
> one child, as China does. That is a very different matter than immigration
> policy.
>
> >I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "progressives."
>
> It is how many liberals like to refer to themselves these days.

I assure you, I'm the furthest thing from a liberal imaginable.

--
George Graves
------------------
"If God drove a car, it would surely be an Alfa Romeo."
Juan Manuel Fangio
5-time world Grand Prix champion

 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:13:26 GMT, George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
>I assure you, I'm the furthest thing from a liberal imaginable.

Political philosophies start to converge and look amazingly similar
when they arrive at the point of crushing individual liberty in the name
of some "greater good." (Stalin, Hitler -- supposedly opposite ends
of the political spectrum, but the people living under those regimes
would have been hard pressed to tell the difference.)

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)

 

"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
> Rick K wrote:
>>[snip ...]
> > Where sub 7-second 0-60, 0.85-0.90g on the skidpad, better than 64mph
> > in a typical slalom, better than 125' 60-0 braking, MPG in the high twenties
> > if not 30mpg would be preferable ... what to get? Oh, and hopefully keep
> > the purchase under $30K?
>
> You do all that stuff with your carpool buddies in the car? And they're
> still speaking to you?
>
> --
> Mike Smith

Well, some of that stuff, particluarly the hopeful 30mpg. I do feel that
a day without triple-digits is a day without sunshine ... =8^o
And, my carpool buddies do speak to me, if you wanna call
"aaaarrrrgggghhhhhh, help, oooohhhhmmmiiigggooodddd!" speaking ...

Seriously, I've always felt that the safest car is one that is competently
driven, and has "accident avoidance capabilities" rather than one that
relies on bulk and mass to provide a cocoon for a inept driver.
But I guess I'm in the minority nowadays, as the market has spoken
in favor of mammothness and not nimbleness.

But, it is my "Constitutionally-protected-right" to express my opinion.
With both words and checkbook.

--
Rick K

 

<MikeHunt@lycos.com> wrote in message news:4072F852.2E90C26D@lycos.com...
> According to the EPA mileage guide a V8 Lincoln LS gets 20 MPG
> city and 27 MPG highway. A V6 Camry is listed at the same 20 MPG
> city and 27 MPG highway. Why drive a smaller car with a V6 when
> one can drive a larger safer V8 powered car? A wimpy V6 Solara
> convertible get 19 MPG city and 26 MPG highway while a high
> performance Mustang GT convertible gets 18 MPG city and 24 MPG
> highway. Seems to me it is hardly worth spending $5,000 more for
> the Solara V6, that can barely get out of its own way, for
> a measly two miles per gallon.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
because the LS will break down 4 times as much as the Toy.

 

<MajorDome@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:40743651.969CB1F9@mailcity.com...
> One can buy a V8 Mustang GT convertible for at least $5,000
> less than a V6 Solar Convertible. The $5,000 will buy all
> of your gas for six or seven years.
>
>
> mike hunt
>
and lots of AAA, and trips to the service center.