http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Purchase All Available US Autos - 8 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
* Home heating oil price? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Purchase All Available US Autos
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 7:21 pm
From: Dave Head
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:01:00 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>In article <hibjk4lerrgc167hvc54mm3subpf655jsi@4ax.com>,
> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:46:11 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <6hajk4d3lkuhqnr26mh7p4t98srf29p24t@4ax.com>,
>> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:04:47 -0500, edward ohare
>> >> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:35:42 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>My Subaru WRX was 27 mpg under the old measuring system.
>> >> >
>> >> >"My Subaru". Dave, this isn't right. You want the government to take
>> >> >**my** money and use it to subsidize Detroit vehicles. But given free
>> >> >choice you spent **your** money on something else. So the rest of us
>> >> >should have to spend our money on things you won't spend yours on.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not only are your arguments for saving Detroit wrong, if you came up
>> >> >with some good ones, you wouldn't have the standing to make them.
>> >> >Now, here I am, anti-bailout, and here are the last ten vehicles I've
>> >> >owed:
>> >> >
>> >> >6 Chryslers
>> >> >1 Dodge
>> >> >1 Oldsmobile
>> >> >1 Chevrolet
>> >> >1 Plymouth
>> >>
>> >> Well, I didn't buy it 'cuz it was foreign, I bought it 'cuz it was AWD,
>> >> and
>> >> 'cuz it handled like it was on rails, and 'cuz it was scary-fast, and 'cuz
>> >> I
>> >> found it in Denver for $23K. Flew in, drove it back over 2 days to
>> >> Virginia
>> >> in
>> >> 2005. Passed a FEMA van heading to Katrina before Katrina hit.
>> >>
>> >> My other car is a Jeep. Traded a Jeep just like it on this one.
>> >
>> >IOW, you bought the Subaru because it was the best vehicle for the money
>> >-- the best value -- for you.
>> >
>> >Tell us honestly: was there even a single big three vehicle which made
>> >the short list in your mind...
>> >
>> >...for any price?
>>
>> Any price?
>>
>> Corvette
>> Dodge Viper
>Neither are "AWD".
Some "requirements" are no requirements when something else is outstanding on
someother way. I _like_ AWD. I would forego it for the styling and raw power
of a Corvette or Viper.
>> Chrysler Crossfire
>> Mustang
>
>Neither AWD, nor handle like they're on "rails".
Handling is cool, and AWD is great, but straight-line speed of the Mustang, and
the styling of the Crossfire _and_ the speed are hard to turn down.
>> Jeep Liberty
>> Jeep Grand Cherokee
>> Cadillac STS AWD
>> Dodge Magnum
>
>None handle like on rails, nor are they "scary fast".
The Magnum with the Hemi is pretty damn fast. The STS has a really powerful
engine, too. Everything there does _not_ handle all that well. I probably
couldn't have won the 2006 Tour Rally Championship with those, but would have
had an awesome ride the rest of the time I was driving it.
>> and I want a Volt when it gets here.
>
>I think you missed the point entirely.
Well, yeah, if you mean "instead of" a WRX. I meant "in addition to" a WRX. I
think the Vette or Viper would work instead of a WRX, as would a Crossfire. The
Magnum would probably work, too. Dunno. Haven't driven any of them, really.
>You wanted a car with a particular set of qualities and despite all of
>the models made by the Detroit 3, *not one* car made by them comes close
>to being a Subaru WRX.
Nope. They seem to not be all that ready to produce AWD or small engines with
turbos. There are cars that would work, tho.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 7:25 pm
From: Dave Head
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:54:55 -0500, edward ohare
<edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:41:06 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:04:47 -0500, edward ohare
>><edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Not only are your arguments for saving Detroit wrong, if you came up
>>>with some good ones, you wouldn't have the standing to make them.
>>>Now, here I am, anti-bailout, and here are the last ten vehicles I've
>>>owed:
>>>
>>>6 Chryslers
>>>1 Dodge
>>>1 Oldsmobile
>>>1 Chevrolet
>>>1 Plymouth
>>
>>Well, I didn't buy it 'cuz it was foreign,
>
>
>But you want my money spent subsidizing Detroit because they're
>American. You're taking a government paycheck, using it to buy
>foreign cars,
And American cars - my other car is a Jeep.
>and you want to take my paycheck and use it to subsidize
>cars you won't buy.
I'll buy 'em, if I get that much money. When I have to buy just 1 car at a
time, I first need a car capable of winning the SCCA National Tour Rally
Championship, and after that I want a car that will haul some stuff.
>
>Most of the people who have participated in this thread have shot
>holes in your economic, business, and politcal arguments in favor of
>saving Detroit. Even if you could come up with some arguments that
>were right, you don't have the standing to make them. Do you have the
>decency to remove yourself from this discussion?
They have different opinions, is all. Mine's as good as any.
Hey, I'm going to unistall Agent tonight and never come to usenet again, just
for you... not...
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 7:36 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <f7gjk41hvd9lns9qd1nvd8n488e8en6sl3@4ax.com>,
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:01:00 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <hibjk4lerrgc167hvc54mm3subpf655jsi@4ax.com>,
> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:46:11 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <6hajk4d3lkuhqnr26mh7p4t98srf29p24t@4ax.com>,
> >> > Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:04:47 -0500, edward ohare
> >> >> <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:35:42 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>My Subaru WRX was 27 mpg under the old measuring system.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"My Subaru". Dave, this isn't right. You want the government to take
> >> >> >**my** money and use it to subsidize Detroit vehicles. But given free
> >> >> >choice you spent **your** money on something else. So the rest of us
> >> >> >should have to spend our money on things you won't spend yours on.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Not only are your arguments for saving Detroit wrong, if you came up
> >> >> >with some good ones, you wouldn't have the standing to make them.
> >> >> >Now, here I am, anti-bailout, and here are the last ten vehicles I've
> >> >> >owed:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >6 Chryslers
> >> >> >1 Dodge
> >> >> >1 Oldsmobile
> >> >> >1 Chevrolet
> >> >> >1 Plymouth
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, I didn't buy it 'cuz it was foreign, I bought it 'cuz it was AWD,
> >> >> and
> >> >> 'cuz it handled like it was on rails, and 'cuz it was scary-fast, and
> >> >> 'cuz
> >> >> I
> >> >> found it in Denver for $23K. Flew in, drove it back over 2 days to
> >> >> Virginia
> >> >> in
> >> >> 2005. Passed a FEMA van heading to Katrina before Katrina hit.
> >> >>
> >> >> My other car is a Jeep. Traded a Jeep just like it on this one.
> >> >
> >> >IOW, you bought the Subaru because it was the best vehicle for the money
> >> >-- the best value -- for you.
> >> >
> >> >Tell us honestly: was there even a single big three vehicle which made
> >> >the short list in your mind...
> >> >
> >> >...for any price?
> >>
> >> Any price?
> >>
> >> Corvette
> >> Dodge Viper
>
> >Neither are "AWD".
>
> Some "requirements" are no requirements when something else is outstanding on
> someother way. I _like_ AWD. I would forego it for the styling and raw
> power
> of a Corvette or Viper.
>
> >> Chrysler Crossfire
> >> Mustang
> >
> >Neither AWD, nor handle like they're on "rails".
>
> Handling is cool, and AWD is great, but straight-line speed of the Mustang,
> and
> the styling of the Crossfire _and_ the speed are hard to turn down.
>
> >> Jeep Liberty
> >> Jeep Grand Cherokee
> >> Cadillac STS AWD
> >> Dodge Magnum
> >
> >None handle like on rails, nor are they "scary fast".
>
> The Magnum with the Hemi is pretty damn fast. The STS has a really powerful
> engine, too. Everything there does _not_ handle all that well. I probably
> couldn't have won the 2006 Tour Rally Championship with those, but would have
> had an awesome ride the rest of the time I was driving it.
>
> >> and I want a Volt when it gets here.
> >
> >I think you missed the point entirely.
>
> Well, yeah, if you mean "instead of" a WRX. I meant "in addition to" a WRX.
> I
> think the Vette or Viper would work instead of a WRX, as would a Crossfire.
> The
> Magnum would probably work, too. Dunno. Haven't driven any of them, really.
>
> >You wanted a car with a particular set of qualities and despite all of
> >the models made by the Detroit 3, *not one* car made by them comes close
> >to being a Subaru WRX.
>
> Nope. They seem to not be all that ready to produce AWD or small engines
> with
> turbos. There are cars that would work, tho.
Just none that did what you said was important...
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 9:13 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dave Head wrote
> edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote
>>> Anyway, we're talking about not having a military of our own,
>> No we're not. We're talking about having a properly sized military equipped for actual threats.
> We have a rich country with vast natural resources
Nope, pretty average natural resources, actually.
> and a valuable infrastructure.
Very little of that is any use to an invader.
> What's the proper size military to protect it?
Dont need one at all. Just nukes to lob at anyone actually stupid enough to try it.
No one could manage an amphibious landing on the US anyway.
China cant even manage to take Taiwan by force.
>>> and simply repelling invasions with a militia. If China wanted to, they could
>>> fly all their troops over on 747's, and would only have to soften the place up
>>> first by killing the population with aforementioned neutron bombs.
>> So if they killed us all, who would buy their Happy Meal toys?
> Aw, they just burn the bodies to fuel the incinerators and make themselves electricity.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
>> If the US didn't pose such a danger to other coutries we wouldn't have much to worry about.
> Ha! The rich guy in any neighborhood may be the nicest guy in the neigborhood,
> but is still likely to have alarms, fences, dogs, and some guns.
Hardly any of them bother.
> People don't want to attack him because they're afraid of him, its because they want what he has.
And only a fool bothers with a private army to protect them.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 9:19 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dave Head wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dave Head wrote:
>>> edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>>> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote
>>>>> edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Wanna go to a militia? Just wait for the foreign invasion,
>>>>>> From where? By who?
>>>>> Why, from any number of places.
>>>>> China, probaby, would be the one to load up about 5 million
>>>>> soldiers into a few thousand troop transports, steam across the
>>>>> Pacific, land in California, Alaska, and maybe even Canada, and
>>>>> pretty much slaughter the 300-million or so citizens, and claim
>>>>> the land for themselves. Without the US Air Force and the US
>>>>> Navy to bother them on the way over, they just have to overcome
>>>>> the citizenry. A few neutron bombs should work just fine for that.
>>>> I thought the US military planned based on enemy capability. If
>>>> this is what you've learned from your employment, we need a
>>>> thorough military housecleaning.
>>>> (Pointing out here that the China at this point isn't capable of an opposed landing in Taiwan.)
>>> Anyway, we're talking about not having a military of our own,
>> Nope, not even New Zealand is that stupid, even tho they could get away with that.
> Switzerland does it.
Like hell they do. They still have a military even now.
> They weren't touched even during WW2.
Just because it was convenient for the krauts to use them unoccupied instead.
>>> and simply repelling invasions with a militia.
>> That approach got rid of the english quite effectively.
> Well, the French sorta helped out, big time.
Not enough to matter. The english would have lost anyway.
Just like they did with countless other attempts to keep their colonys later.
They werent even stupid enough to try keeping HongKong.
>>> If China wanted to, they could fly all their troops over on 747's,
>> Pure drug crazed fantasy.
> Yeah, as long as we've got the USAF and the USN, and the USA when they finally get here.
Dont need that. They wouldnt be stupid enough to try it.
> Scratch that - they'd never make it here.
They wouldnt be stupid enough to try it even if there was no US military system.
>>> and would only have to soften the place up first by killing
>>> the population with aforementioned neutron bombs.
>> And see the whole of china turned to a crisp within the hour.
> Not if we're not maintaining a military, eh?
You dont need any military, just keep the nukes.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 9:24 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
edward ohare wrote:
> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote
>>> And see the whole of china turned to a crisp within the hour.
>> Not if we're not maintaining a military, eh?
> Dave, I hate to break it to you, but the major function of the
> military and its associated workers is to convince people its
> important so it can retain its funding. Have you ever considered the
> reason for the nuclear triad? Its not because its necessary. One
> method of delivering long range nukes is sufficient. But it exists so
> all the services could have their very own long range nukes!
The real reason for the sub launched nukes is because
its impossible to know where they are all the time so only
a fool would be stupid enough to try a nuke first strike.
> Don't feel bad, Dave. We're not the first country
> that pissed away its vitality on military spending.
Its arguably what produced most of the best advances in technology for the US,
most obviously with the integrated circuit and so the PC etc and the net in spades.
Sure, at a hell of a cost, but clearly its very affordable and it is what ensured that europe
isnt still under the jackboot, and asia isnt grovelling to little slitty eyed shits with big swords.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 9:29 pm
From: edward ohare
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:24:07 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>The real reason for the sub launched nukes is because
>its impossible to know where they are all the time so only
>a fool would be stupid enough to try a nuke first strike.
Right. Meaning you don't need bombers or land based missiles.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 9:46 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dave Head wrote
> edward ohare <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
>> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote
>>> Why don't you start hating your own foot? Advocating the
>>> destruction of American manufacturing capability is pretty much
>>> shooting yourself in the foot.
>> Who is advocating? Its happened.
> Advocating would be opposing measures required to help
> them survive. America needs _more_ manufactuing, not less.
No it doesnt. Manufacturing is a very small part of any modern
first world economy and america still has plenty left if the Big 3
cant make enough cars enough want to buy to avoid going bust.
>>> The less manufacturing we have here, the less prosperity we have
>>> here. Wonder why wages have stagnated since the 70's, and studies
>>> claim that our parents in the 70's actually had a better standard
>>> of living than we do today? Well, its because we have lost a lot
>>> of manufactuering. There's 3 ways to make wealth - grow something
>>> (farming), dig something (mining), and build something
>>> (manufacturing.) Any one of these three that we lose should be
>>> done only in spite of everyone in the country doing everything we
>>> can do retain it, as if our own personal financial well-being
>>> depends on it, because it does.
>> Subsidizing anything is a loser.
> Oh, really?
Yep.
> The French subsidized the snot out of Airbus, and look where it is.
More fool the stupid frogs. It doesnt contribute enough to france to be worth that massive cost.
> It is now threatening Boeing,
Like hell it is.
> which not only is _not_ getting subsidies from the gov't, but is
> operating in the 2nd highest corporate tax structure on the planet.
That last is a bare faced lie.
> And look where they are.
They're doing fine.
> That's not fair, and it doesn't reflect the worth of the product.
No one ever said it did.
> The US Gov't subsidizes the hell out of the trucking industry,
Like hell it does.
> and you can see what happens by just looking ahead of you and see
> what's at the front of that line that is holding up traffic on the interstate.
That happens right thruout the modern first world, even when there is no subsidy.
Essentially because its the most viable way to move most stuff.
> They subsidize it by building the roads that the trucks run upon,
Those have to be there, even if all the freight went by rail.
> without doing the same thing for railroads.
Because those dont have to be there if the freight didnt move on them.
> Those damn big "We Pay X Tax" on the trucks doesn't
> begin to cover the cost, since an 18 wheeler at 80,000 lbs
> does 10,000 times the damage of a car to the interstates
You keep plucking numbers out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> (and now they want to be allowed to go to 100,000 lbs. Transportation
> suicide. The roads would be continuously under repair.)
Pure fantasy. Plenty of countrys allow weights that high and their roads arent.
>> Because of world wide overcapacity and because they are the weakest
>> of the large automakers, Detroit requires permanent subsidies to survive...
>> unless capacity is reduced by letting some of them fail.
> If something is going to fail, let it be something other than US companies.
Taint gunna happen. They werent stupid enough to lumber them with the benefits costs that
the US car manufacturers got stuck with because of the stupid way that health care is paid for.
> We need them here
Nope.
> - if all three go TU, the economy is going to be devastated in the short term,
Fantasy. Foreign car manufacturers would just do more assembly of cars in the US.
> and we will _never again_ reach the level of prosperity that we have even now.
Pure fantasy. Plenty of modern first world countrys have no car industry
and have a level of prosperity thats at least as good as the US.
> There will be more people below the poverty line,
Another lie. They'd just work for the foreign car companys instead.
> more people living / trying to live on credit alone, etc. as
> one of the 3 significant engines of wealth is lost forever.
Have fun explaining how those other first world countrys manage fine without any car industry.
> We'll never be able to restart a competitive auto industry.
Pig ignorant lie. The foreign car companys would just take over
from the Big 3 and wouldnt have the vast overhang of all those
retired apes whose health care and pensions have to be paid for.
> Right now, we have a chance, and the American built cars
> have just been getting better and better over the last 20 years.
So has every other manufacturer's cars, at a MUCH faster rate than the Big 3 have too.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Home heating oil price?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 17 2008 10:37 pm
From: Kelly
Macuser wrote:
> I converted from oil to natural gas last year, at a cost of several
> thousand. Wondering now if it was a good move. Has anybody been locked
> into a high price for oil due to contracts?
>
>
No lock. Just ordered some today at a price of $1.88.
Kelly
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
