[OT - US/Canada] E-85

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Ray Fischer
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

My 5.7L HEMI with MDS actually gets better overall gas mileage
than does the 3.5L V-6, and with 90 more ponies.

We just launched the Dodge Caliber. Later this year, a 330 hp
turbo 2.4L SRT4 will launch, capable of 0-60 in 5 flat /and/
CAFE to

Nobody much cares about the size of your dick.

Didn't know we were measuring dicks in the shower room! But, you
"green" people just keep on a buying those silly-ass city cars and
I'll keep on laughing at your false economy. When are you people
going to understand the basic truth of the world - them that has,
gets, and them that wants big, powerful vehicles, gets.

Now, go away boy, you bother me ...

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for waging
wars or debates

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:25:47 -0500, All Things Mopar, the USA's
latest benchmark for The Ugly American wrote:

Let's get this straight - the "war" is against el Qaida. The
Taliban is no more.

You're wrong as usual. It's once again unsafe in many parts of
Afghanistan because the Taliban is most assuredly not "no more".

You're an idiot, ASSAR, admit it. There ain't no Taliban in
Afghanistan and there ain't no war there, except in your feeble
brain.

Insanity? Dementia? We're left wondering what makes you tick?


"The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for
waging wars or debates

Or an extremely offensive offense designed to divert attention
from your increasingly stupid belligerent, fact free statements?

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:25:47 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote:

You're wrong as usual. It's once again unsafe in many parts of
Afghanistan because the Taliban is most assuredly not "no more".

You're an idiot, ASSAR, admit it. There ain't no Taliban in
Afghanistan and there ain't no war there, except in your feeble
brain.

Interestingly, since I posted the last message I heard an
interview with two NY Times reporters (Elizabeth Ruben and Dexter
Filkins(sp?)) that have spent much time in Afghanistan, and they
report that it is far more dangerous than before. They can no
longer speak with many of their contacts, either because the
contacts fear being killed by the Taliban, or because they fear that
the reporters will be kidnapped, and they will be blamed. You can
hear the interview, but I assume that you'll have no interest in the
reality that exists beyond your malignant imagination. If I'm
mistaken just ask and I'll provide a pointer to the interview's URL.

All Things Mopar wrote:
Ray Fischer
All Things Mopar wrote:


Let's get this straight - the "war" is against el Qaida.

There is no war against al Qaeda.

Then, why are we illegally wiretapping American citizens in some
vain attempt to stop the folks you claim we're not at war with,
huh?

Because Bush is a dictator-wannabe. He says that he doesn't have to
obey the law, is free to disregard the Constitution, can dictate to
other nations, and can use any tactic he wishes in order to briing
about his new world order. Terrorism is the bogeyman used to scare
silly fools like yourself into doing what he says.

--
Ray Fischer

Andrew Venor wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Andrew Venor wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

Andrew Venor wrote:


Ray Fischer wrote:


Andrew Venor wrote:



Ray Fischer wrote:




Yes.....He has had to make up for Clinton's lack of action in an world of
ever increasing hostility.....


What a typically stupid statement. Clinton went after terrorists.

We saw with hindsight that blowing up some tents and mud huts with
cruise missiles after the Africa embassy bombings wasn't an effective
strategy against Al Qaeda.


And so you neocons prove yet again that you care more about your
partisan cult than oyu care about America.

Throwing out veiled anti-Semitic insults tells me you don't have an
argument to make.


You idiotic non sequitur proves that all you care about is attacking
Clinton and justifying Bush.

What ever you might think of President Bush after Sept. 11, 2001 their
hasn't been another attack on US soil since the Taliban was toppled and
Al Qaeda had to go on the lam.


1) Anthrax attacks of 9/2001
2) The worst terrorist attack against the US happens during Bush's
watc and the best you can come up with is "there hasn't been
another one"?!?


You have admit that after President Clinton blew up some tents it didn't


The usual neocon lies.

So tell us, what did Clinton do that deterred Al Qaeda?

Captured and tried terorrists. Bombed suspected chemical weapons
factory. Warned Bush that al Qaeda was planning to attack the US.

The 2001 attacks in New York, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania were levels of destruction previously reserved to nation
states.

More people die of food poisoning every year in the US.

Do you have a figure to back that statement up?

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm

Besides, food poisoning
isn't a planned attack on the nation by a foreign non state organization
out to destroy us.

Unlike Bush's attack on a foreign nation that killed over 100,000
innocent people?

If you are referring to the Lancet article then I have my doubts in
their methodology in their survey applying the numbers of the worst
neighborhoods of places like Baghdad to the entire country.

They did no such thing. The samples were randomly selected.

However,
the numbers you claim pail against the one million Iraqis and Iranians
that were killed in the eight years of Iran/Iraq war that Saddam Hussein

So you're saying that as murderous despots go, Bush isn't quite as bad
as Saddam.

No bin Laden fled the country and escaped.

Because Bush let him. How many years has it been since then?

What is your proof that the President "let him" escape?

Has he been captured? Is the US doing anything to capture bin Laden?
Or is the US spending hundreds of billins of dollars conquering
Afghanistan, Iraq, and then Iran?

And seeing you
think you have a clue in finding bin Laden why don't you hop a plane
over to Pakistan and get him.

So you think he's in Pakistan? The country that despite harboring
known terrorists and despite being ruled by a military dictator is one
of Bush's allies?

"War on terrorism" is crap.

You would rather that religious minorities like the Hindus in
Afghanistan be persecuted, and oppressed.

You would rather persecute and kill Muslims.

No I would rather that everybody get along.

Then you had better stop being a lying asshole.

So tell us, what school of debate did you attend that taught you that
profanity wins arguments?

If you don't like beiong called a lying asshoel then stop being a
lying asshole. Real simple, but it seems that you right-wingers
aren't too clear on the whole "personal responsibility" concept.

You would rather that millions be killed by foreign despots like Saddam

And again you resort to being a lying asshole.

It's all you murderous fanatics can do.

I'll ask it again, what is it about some people on the left that makes

What makes you murderous fascists think that lying and killing are the
only solutions to any problem? You're just like Saddam - you think
that mass killing is the solution.

--
Ray Fischer

All Things Mopar wrote:
Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, ASAAR laid
this on an unsuspecting readership ...

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:18:26 -0500, All Things Mopar wrote:

Let's get this straight - the "war" is against el Qaida. The
Taliban is no more.

You're wrong as usual. It's once again unsafe in many parts
of
Afghanistan because the Taliban is most assuredly not "no
more".

You're an idiot, ASSAR, admit it. There ain't no Taliban in
Afghanistan and there ain't no war there, except in your feeble

Idiot.

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
All Things Mopar wrote:
Ray Fischer
All Things Mopar wrote:


Let's get this straight - the "war" is against el Qaida.

There is no war against al Qaeda.

Then, why are we illegally wiretapping American citizens in some
vain attempt to stop the folks you claim we're not at war with,
huh?

Because Bush is a dictator-wannabe. He says that he doesn't have to
obey the law, is free to disregard the Constitution, can dictate to
other nations, and can use any tactic he wishes in order to briing
about his new world order. Terrorism is the bogeyman used to scare
silly fools like yourself into doing what he says.

And his motive for all this evesdropping on American citizens is.....?

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, William
Graham laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

Then, why are we illegally wiretapping American citizens in
some vain attempt to stop the folks you claim we're not at
war with, huh?

Because Bush is a dictator-wannabe. He says that he doesn't
have to obey the law, is free to disregard the Constitution,
can dictate to other nations, and can use any tactic he
wishes in order to briing about his new world order.
Terrorism is the bogeyman used to scare silly fools like
yourself into doing what he says.

And his motive for all this evesdropping on American citizens
is.....?

Nobody really knows.

The Brits claim to have discovered some 775 bad guys in their
country after Tony Blair had MI-5 install Bush-style wire
tapping. OK, fine. But, if /we/ have caught some here, presumably
far larger than 775, why wouldn't the White House be trumpeting
that from the tree tops in an attempt to get the president's job
approval ratings up? And, no, it is /not/ because we'd be tipping
our hand to our enemies. No one is suggesting that the bad guys
be identified... The administration won't even tell House and
Senate investigating committees how many calls were tapped, much
less who made the calls, what they did or did not say, or
anything else that might help to deflect the obvious Bill of
Rights violations.

And, even the FISA court is often ignored. It is easy to see why
the bully boys might want to listen in when one bad guy is
talking to another one while another agent petitions the FISA
court in order not to have them escape - this used to be called
"probable cause" - but the requirement is 72 hours and is often
delayed indefinitely, sometimes forever. How the hell hard is it
to wake up a judge, present the evidence for the tap, and get
approval for a warrant? One insight may help: the /typical/ FISA
court warrant request exceeds 60 pages! WTF?! Why doesn't it just
say "one camel jockey is talking to his bud in Libya, we want to
trace the call and listen in to identify these guys"? And, how is
it that in a large percentage of alleged cases of wire tapping -
"alleged cases" because no one knows the true number - a warrant
is never even applied for?

It is argued by the White House that it is only international
calls are tapped and no one is actually listening in on the
calls. Yeah, OK. And, the claim is that "data mining" is going
not, not eavesdropping. I just love euphemisms like "collateral
damage" and now "data mining", which apparently means looking for
patterns that identify potential bad guys. Right, like the red,
yellow, and green identifiers for people in airports. We all know
how this one works: white guys are green, people with swarthy
complexions but dressed "normally" are yellow, and someone who
"looks like a terrorist" is red and is picked up and hauled away,
with no presumption of innocence, no Miranda rights (which do not
apply to terrorist threats, obviously), and no charges ever
filed.

So, tell me, how exactly does the Patriot Act get around the 4th,
5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments for people standing in
airport lines? If this sort of **** is done to exclude blacks
from something "regular" citizens easily get is called "racial
profiling", how is that different than "profiling" Middle Eastern
people or anyone else who is simply walking around an airport
terminal?

Likely, no one will ever know the answers to these and many other
questions until two things occur, which they will eventually
("what goes around, comes around") - control of Congress passes
to the Blues and a Blue president is elected. One would think
that by now the truly egregious violations of civil liberties by
the provisions of the Patriot Act and minor revisions to the
much-amended 1947 National Security Act would've been challenged
in court by now, wouldn't you?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for
waging wars or debates

All Things Mopar wrote:

This is total lunacy as it is highly regressive, the tax falls
most heavily on the poor, and a high tax on gas guzzlers will
discourage owners from trading them in for the tax creditmobile
du jour for years. So, where's the incentive, other than to make
poor people poorer?

Feels bad being cornered, doesn't it?

But that's exactly what the American public have done (buying gas
guzzlers) and Detroit has done (pushing them).

You completely ignored the hard lessons of 1973 and you will be more
severely bitten this time as the US economy is on shaky foundations, the
government is deep in debt (and YOU Mr. Taxpayer, owe that money as YOU
are the government ("We the People")) and economies like China and India
continue their inexorable growth and hunger for oil. To make that a bit
clearer, you will be bidding with ever cheaper dollars for a resource
that will be climbing in price.

Personally, I do my best to reduce fuel consumtion. Personally I'd be
ashamed to drive a 5.7 L 4000 Lb monstrosity automobile that consumes
gasoline way out of proportion of the transportation service it renders.
And indeed when the day comes for you to sell it (as unafordable (or
illegal)) to run, well, boo-hoo for you.

(When you first mentioned a 5.7 L engine I assumed it was for a pickup
truck and assumed that you had some good reason for the pickup truck.
But an AUTOMOBILE WITH THE SAME PASSENGER VOLUME AS A HONDA ACCORD WITH
A 5.7 L engine to drive its bloated 4000LB frame around? YIKES!)

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

William Graham wrote:

Chrysler does make some pretty efficient vehicles....their PT cruiser and
Sebring are both 28 or 29 mpg (freeway) vehicles that cost around
$20,000.......I just claim that these vehicles wouldn't exist were it not
for the foreign influence over the last 30 years.....IOW, the big three had
to have their faces rubbed in it before they finally saw the
light.

What light? They had 1973 over 30 years ago. In the meantime they've
held CAFE in check in order to sell gas guzzlers. Yes, they've made
some progress (beaten into it), but there is no reason to not be
champions at efficiency. The market will reward them for that, they
just can't see it.

It's no surprise that within a year or two Toyota will stabilize as #1
in the US.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.