On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:48:50 GMT, Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:03:33 GMT, Elle
>> > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
>> > E wrote
>> >
>> >> >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
>> >> >
>> >> > It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the
> Joneses.
>> >> >
>> >> > In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
>> >> > environmentalists.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the
> classic
>> >> political definition,
>> >
>> > This is from the "Libertarian's Guide to Language Abuses--Vote
>> > Libertarian!," right?
>> >
>> > I prefer the real world.
>> >
>>
>> Ewwww, don't even get me started about the Libertarian party.
>
> Ha. :-)
>
> Seems like the only people who ever try to invoke secondary meanings of
> "liberal" in political discussions are Right-leaning folk (which in my
> experience includes certain self-described Libertarians).
>

It would be pedantic of me to point out that the definition of
liberal I used has been historically the primary meaning, so I won't. ;-)
But yes, my experience with Libertarians has been that they generally
attempt to prove to anyone who will listen that they're actually
Libertarians, but just haven't been educated enough to realize it yet.
Which, to me, is extraordinarily annoying.


>> > snip
>> >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the
> Sierra
>> > Club
>> >> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
>> >> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
>> > "conservatives."
>> >>
>> >> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
>> >> self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations,
>> > and
>> >> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)
>> >
>> > For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?
>>
>> Unfortunately, they don't allow children in Middle School to vote. ;-)
>> But in the ones I was able to legally vote in, I voted for Bush Sr,
>> Clinton, Bush Jr, and Kerry - at least if you count a vote against
>> Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed,
>> depending on who happens to be running.
>
> I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an
> Independent.

Again, definitions. My experience is that people who are declared
Independents tend to mostly be leftists who occasionally vote
to the right in local elections - but almost always go left
in the nationals. I call myself a conservative because I tend
to prefer political policies that pretty much leave me to
my own devices, whether it involves launching loud and
noisy rockets in the desert, or marrying a box turtle. But I'm
happy to pay taxes for clean water, to give a helping hand to
people who have had problems ( just not TOO much of a hand ;-) ),
and to pay for public sculptures whose purpose and meaning I
can't even begin to fathom. But hey, that's OK, as long as my
industry gets big tax breaks so I stay employed. ;-)

- Rich

 

"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:03:33 GMT, Elle
> > "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
> > E wrote
> >
> >> >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
> >> >
> >> > It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the
Joneses.
> >> >
> >> > In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
> >> > environmentalists.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the
classic
> >> political definition,
> >
> > This is from the "Libertarian's Guide to Language Abuses--Vote
> > Libertarian!," right?
> >
> > I prefer the real world.
> >
>
> Ewwww, don't even get me started about the Libertarian party.

Ha. :-)

Seems like the only people who ever try to invoke secondary meanings of
"liberal" in political discussions are Right-leaning folk (which in my
experience includes certain self-described Libertarians).

> > snip
> >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the
Sierra
> > Club
> >> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
> >> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
> > "conservatives."
> >>
> >> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
> >> self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations,
> > and
> >> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)
> >
> > For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?
>
> Unfortunately, they don't allow children in Middle School to vote. ;-)
> But in the ones I was able to legally vote in, I voted for Bush Sr,
> Clinton, Bush Jr, and Kerry - at least if you count a vote against
> Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed,
> depending on who happens to be running.

I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an
Independent.

 

jim beam wrote:
> Abeness wrote:
>
>> dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
>>
>>> Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not
>>>> viable for long trips.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile
>>> stops
>>> for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels
>>> would be
>>> more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I
>>> would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional
>>> infrastructure.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, of course. But the immediate subject here is a wholly alternative
>> fuel source that does not involve gasoline, for the time when we run
>> out of oil--or gas gets too expensive for all but the very rich to
>> afford.
>
>
> wasn't a lot of the bleating about diminishing reserves done to get tax
> write-offs? wasting asset status?
>
> personally. i doubt reserves will be seriously pinched any time soon. or
> even during our grand kids lifetimes. and then we can just switch to
> biomass solutions. fuels that are liquid at normal temps/pressures are
> by far the easiest solution.

I agree that they are certainly easier now, but I can easily imagine a
future time when another solution could become equally easy, once its
technical hurdles have been ironed out and it goes into mass-production.
It mostly comes down to how important people decide that it is to make a
change, and the energy invested in finding solutions.

It is pretty much impossible to get accurate figures about reserves. See
this interesting piece: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681935.stm
.. If OPEC countries can pump more if they have greater reserves and they
therefore inflate reported reserves, if they don't allow outside
auditing, and if estimated reserves have remained unchanged in 20 years,
we're basically without real information. Never mind the difficulties of
mapping what's actually deep underground. Then there are the
difficulties estimating future demand. It's a morass made deeper by the
vast industries/sums riding on the info.

For the sake of discussion, however, let's take an OPEC 2003 estimate of
1 trillion barrels world reserves and the ~77.75 million barrels/day
world consumption (from the BBC article): the reserves would last a bit
over 35 years if consumption were to remain the same. Consumption is
certain to increase, as China, etc. become more industrialized, however.
35 years ain't that far off.

And then there's the geological question of what happens to the planet
as that volume of matter is removed from the crust. One 42-US gallon
barrel = 5.6146 cubic feet, or 0.145 metric tons. I can't be bothered
to figure out an estimate of how much crude has been extracted to date
to come up with a volume. Per day it's currently 436.54 million cubic
feet. That equates to 159.34 billion cubic feet per year, or 1.082 cubic
*miles*/year.

That kind of volume is miniscule considering the scale we're dealing
with, granted--the earth's total volume is ~260 *billion* cubic
miles--but crude is removed from the earths crust, which apparently
ranges from ~3 miles thick in much of the ocean to avg. 19-28 miles
thick on the continents surveyed at
http://mahi.ucsd.edu/Gabi/rem.dir/cr...st2a.thick.gif.
How is that volume distributed? Is it simply replaced by water (I've
seen examples of oil wells atop water)? How does it impact on plate
tectonics? Could we end up with monstrous sinkholes where oil is being
extracted? What other potential problems do we face? I'm no expert, and
simply don't know.

 

"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
E
> > Seems like the only people who ever try to invoke secondary meanings of
> > "liberal" in political discussions are Right-leaning folk (which in my
> > experience includes certain self-described Libertarians).
> >
>
> It would be pedantic of me to point out that the definition of
> liberal I used has been historically the primary meaning, so I won't. ;-)

Likewise, it would be pedantic of me to point out that context is
everything, so here, it should have been obvious that the definition I
intended was the modern political one. ;-)

> But yes, my experience with Libertarians has been that they generally
> attempt to prove to anyone who will listen that they're actually
> Libertarians, but just haven't been educated enough to realize it yet.

Well put.

> Which, to me, is extraordinarily annoying.

It is helpful in the sense that it saves time: I move on more quickly to
talk to someone else more intelligent.

> >> > snip
> >> >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the
> > Sierra
> >> > Club
> >> >> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or
an
> >> >> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
> >> > "conservatives."
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
> >> >> self-described conservative who is members of both those
organizations,
> >> > and
> >> >> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)
> >> >
> >> > For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, they don't allow children in Middle School to vote.
;-)
> >> But in the ones I was able to legally vote in, I voted for Bush Sr,
> >> Clinton, Bush Jr, and Kerry - at least if you count a vote against
> >> Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed,
> >> depending on who happens to be running.
> >
> > I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an
> > Independent.
>
> Again, definitions. My experience is that people who are declared
> Independents tend to mostly be leftists who occasionally vote
> to the right in local elections -

Interesting. I've seen just the opposite: Self-described Independents I've
known tend to lean Right.

Not saying you're lying or anything.

 

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:02:38 GMT, Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
> E
>> > Seems like the only people who ever try to invoke secondary meanings of
>> > "liberal" in political discussions are Right-leaning folk (which in my
>> > experience includes certain self-described Libertarians).
>> >
>>
>> It would be pedantic of me to point out that the definition of
>> liberal I used has been historically the primary meaning, so I won't. ;-)
>
> Likewise, it would be pedantic of me to point out that context is
> everything, so here, it should have been obvious that the definition I
> intended was the modern political one. ;-)
>
>> But yes, my experience with Libertarians has been that they generally
>> attempt to prove to anyone who will listen that they're actually
>> Libertarians, but just haven't been educated enough to realize it yet.
>
> Well put.
>
>> Which, to me, is extraordinarily annoying.
>
> It is helpful in the sense that it saves time: I move on more quickly to
> talk to someone else more intelligent.
>
>> >> > snip
>> >> >> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the
>> > Sierra
>> >> > Club
>> >> >> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or
> an
>> >> >> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
>> >> > "conservatives."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
>> >> >> self-described conservative who is members of both those
> organizations,
>> >> > and
>> >> >> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, they don't allow children in Middle School to vote.
> ;-)
>> >> But in the ones I was able to legally vote in, I voted for Bush Sr,
>> >> Clinton, Bush Jr, and Kerry - at least if you count a vote against
>> >> Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed,
>> >> depending on who happens to be running.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an
>> > Independent.
>>
>> Again, definitions. My experience is that people who are declared
>> Independents tend to mostly be leftists who occasionally vote
>> to the right in local elections -
>
> Interesting. I've seen just the opposite: Self-described Independents I've
> known tend to lean Right.
>
> Not saying you're lying or anything.
>
>

Obviously we need to start a country composed of your friends
and mine, and we'll have a perfect place where, uh, ( desperately
thinking of how to get back on topic... ) everyone will
buy Honda vehicles and be kind to kittens. ;-)

- Rich

 

"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
E wrote
> >> > I wouldn't call you a conservative at all. To me, you're obviously an
> >> > Independent.
> >>
> >> Again, definitions. My experience is that people who are declared
> >> Independents tend to mostly be leftists who occasionally vote
> >> to the right in local elections -
> >
> > Interesting. I've seen just the opposite: Self-described Independents
I've
> > known tend to lean Right.
> >
> > Not saying you're lying or anything.
> >
> >
>
> Obviously we need to start a country composed of your friends
> and mine, and we'll have a perfect place where, uh, ( desperately
> thinking of how to get back on topic... ) everyone will
> buy Honda vehicles and be kind to kittens. ;-)

Hold on there: My friends are all Democrats. These Independents (of either
your or my breeds) are no more than acquaintances or sports teammates.

The Democrats stand for and behind certain highly important core values
which the typical Independent is happy to abandon for issues that are lesser
in value to society AFAIC. That's not irrational of them. It's just not my
"religion" to put my personal needs so far ahead of greater society's.

Not that every Democrat is right about everything. Some are horribly wrong
about many things.

Elle
"... she writes as she checks how the stock markets are doing today. "

Back to Honda

 

Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <dcrimt$i0i$1@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com
> wrote:

>> I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile stops
>> for gasoline.

> Current mid-size diesels can do that, too.

I was referring to the lack of need to stop for recharging, in comparison
to a full electric vehicle.

If a current mid-size diesel can get good range, why wouldn't adding an
electric hybrid option to a diesel make it even higher mileage? Maybe it
would, but it wouldn't be as green. The VW TDI series isn't available in
California.

Mazda is working on a rotary hydrogen ICE/electric hybrid.
http://www.edmunds.com/news/autoshow...3/page019.html
Continental had a four-sided rotary diesel electric generation plant.
If one could get over the fact that the RPM didn't change with load or road
speed, the way a typical diesel locomotive works, that might be an
efficient platform.

There are many alternatives possible. I think the addition of an electric
motor is a fine augmentation to current state of the art ICE.

ICE: Internal Combustion Engine.
I C E: In Case of Emergency contact listed in your cell phone.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

user <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote:

> Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just don't
> seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get
> a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which
> vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The
> vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional vehicles
> when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for
> the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious.

I used to make the same observations about Subarus. I think it is caused
by the mindset that "I have 4wd, I can ignore the snow". Some would go
flying by, at speeds I thought were ridiculous for conditions, apparently
with success, others would plant it in a parking lot.

> use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
> just a couple times a year is simply insane.

I know people with large vehicles that are used rarely, for those occasions
when they think they need power. One has a 2004 Ford F250 that sits most
of the time, while she drives a Prius. Driving the F250 every day because
you tow a trailer on vacation isn't sensible. I don't think owning one and
leaving it in the driveway makes a lot of sense either, but ...

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

Elle wrote:

> "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
> snip
>
>> Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just
>
> don't
>
>>seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get
>>a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which
>>vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The
>>vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional
>
> vehicles
>
>>when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for
>>the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious.
>
> The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing of
> SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
>
>> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
>>space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
>>year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
>>where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
>>of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
>>"Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
>>use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
>>just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>>
>> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
>>conservative Republican. ;-)
>
> Ha.
>
> I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on
> them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to
> be!

Maybe they're Democrats, not liberals?

 

Elle wrote:

> "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
> E wrote
>
>>>The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing
>
> of
>
>>>SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe.
>>The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy,
>>they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need
>>to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally
>>longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on.
>
>
> The New Yorker article would really be worth any interested person's time,
> IMO.
>
> Like you imply, certain (many?) SUVs are in fact some top contraption that
> looks like a truck top but thrown onto literally a passenger car chassis.
>
> But
>
>>when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather
>>seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they
>>*think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-)
>>Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can
>>be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate
>>tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't.
>
>
> When it comes down to it, one has to consider the psychology behind people's
> driving habits.
>
> So you don't give a testosterone laden 16-year-old boy a muscle car, period.
>
>>>> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
>>>>space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
>>>>year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
>>>>where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
>>>>of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
>>>>"Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
>>>>use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
>>>>just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>>>>
>>>> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
>>>>conservative Republican. ;-)
>>>
>>>Ha.
>>>
>>>I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still
>
> on
>
>>>them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim
>
> to
>
>>>be!
>>>
>>
>> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
>
> It does to me.

Last I looked, you haven't been appointed to speak on behalf of
"liberals" (whatever they are).

 

user wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:21:37 GMT, Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
>>snip
>>
>>> Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just
>>
>>don't
>>
>>>seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get
>>>a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which
>>>vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The
>>>vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional
>>
>>vehicles
>>
>>>when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for
>>>the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious.
>>
>>The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing of
>>SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
>>
>
>
> I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe.
> The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy,
> they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need
> to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally
> longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on. But
> when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather
> seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they
> *think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-)
> Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can
> be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate
> tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't.
>
>
>
>>> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
>>>space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
>>>year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
>>>where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
>>>of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
>>>"Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
>>>use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
>>>just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>>>
>>> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
>>>conservative Republican. ;-)
>>
>>Ha.
>>
>>I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on
>>them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to
>>be!
>>
>
>
> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist, just like
> being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and
> ACLU. ;-)

Well said, Rich!

 

Abeness wrote:

<snip>

> Could we end up with monstrous sinkholes where oil is being extracted?

At last, peace in the Middle East.

Maybe we should encourage consumption?

 

Jason wrote:
>
> One of the local newspapers mentioned some people that are now making use
> of recycled french fry oil that they get for free from restaurants.

Darling International Inc. provides recycling and rendering services in
which animal and food waste products are turned into useful commercial
goods, including tallow, protein meals (Meat and Bone Meal), and yellow
grease. Darling also services the restaurant industry by removing used
cooking oil and pumping grease traps.

so basically if everyone used old cooking oil to drive, the price of
this stuff goes up:

http://www.darlingii.com/products/an...ens/index.html

 

user wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:42:52 GMT, Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
>>E wrote
>>
>>>>The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing
>>
>>of
>>
>>>>SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe.
>>>The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy,
>>>they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need
>>>to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally
>>>longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on.
>>
>>The New Yorker article would really be worth any interested person's time,
>>IMO.
>>
>>Like you imply, certain (many?) SUVs are in fact some top contraption that
>>looks like a truck top but thrown onto literally a passenger car chassis.
>>
>>But
>>
>>>when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather
>>>seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they
>>>*think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-)
>>>Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can
>>>be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate
>>>tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't.
>>
>>When it comes down to it, one has to consider the psychology behind people's
>>driving habits.
>>
>>So you don't give a testosterone laden 16-year-old boy a muscle car, period.
>
> Uh oh, I was a testosterone laden 17 year old boy who bought a 5L
> Mustang. ;-) Which was, if I may say, absolutely the worst possible
> car to drive in the snow. Ever. Even with excellent tires.
>
>>>>> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
>>>>>space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
>>>>>year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
>>>>>where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
>>>>>of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
>>>>>"Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
>>>>>use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
>>>>>just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>>>>>
>>>>> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
>>>>>conservative Republican. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Ha.
>>>>
>>>>I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still
>>
>>on
>>
>>>>them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim
>>>>to be!
>>>
>>> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
>>
>>It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses.
>>
>>In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
>>environmentalists.
>
> It really depends on how you're using "liberal"

In the modern US political parlance "liberal" is used as a pejorative to
refer to anyone not toeing the neocon/GOP party line. It's used
interchangeably with "commie", "pinko", "fag", "feminazi", etc. IOW, it
has no meaning.

 

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
> Abeness wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Could we end up with monstrous sinkholes where oil is being extracted?
>
>
> At last, peace in the Middle East.
>
> Maybe we should encourage consumption?

LOL! If only it were that easy... <g>

 

Abeness wrote:
> Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>
>> Abeness wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Could we end up with monstrous sinkholes where oil is being extracted?
>>
>>
>>
>> At last, peace in the Middle East.
>>
>> Maybe we should encourage consumption?
>
>
> LOL! If only it were that easy... <g>

<wisely> Somtimes it must be difficult to be truly easy, Grasshopper.

 

FanJet <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Bebop wrote:
> > <hunkman7@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I would stay away from hybrids. Saw one die in the middle of
> >> traffic - no power and creating massive backups. The industry will
> >> eventually go to hydrogen systems, but never electric.
> >
> > The hybrid is not true electric, thus the word "hybrid".
>
> Actually, they're true gasoline since that's their *only* power source.
> "Hybrid" is a spin that gets people to purchase something they otherwise
> wouldn't.


Not excatly, you can run the car on battery alone. But you will not get
far on it. Some people have managed to alter the program on the car's
CPU and allows it to run longer on battery and recharge it at night to
get better mileage.

A true gasoline car of the same displacment will not get that kind of
mileage, but a hybrid will.

 

<dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com> wrote:

> The Honda Civic HX seems to have some of the Civic Hybrid features, minus
> the hybrid and the regen braking, and it falls a little short in the mpg
> department.


The HX has none of the hybrid's feature. It has a special lean burning
engine. it seems like 05 will be the last year for it.

 

"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote
E
> >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
> >
> > It does to me.
>
> Last I looked, you haven't been appointed to speak on behalf of
> "liberals" (whatever they are).

You have a problem with people posting an opinion? Note the qualification,
"to me."

You haven't been appointed government censor.

 

"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@universalexports.org> wrote
E wrote
> > I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still
on
> > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim
to
> > be!
>
> Maybe they're Democrats, not liberals?

You need a course in reading comprehension.