 |
|
 |
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 18:06:17 -0500, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
Sounds like a fisherman talking about the big one he hopes to catch.
Hi hopes but lower expectations.
LZ
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:47:47 -0400, "Carl A. in FL" <...@yahoo.com
"Frog B ritches" <...@newsfe07.iad...
+
Didn't you vote for 0bama?
So, stop bitching and get rid of your TT/Fifth Wheel.
It;s all a globalist conspiracy to make you buy a tent.
--
Carl A. in FL
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 07:38:41 -0500, "John A. Weeks III" <...@johnweeks.com
In article <...@news.astraweb.com "Carl A. in FL" <...@yahoo.com
The only global conspiracy is the goofy things that you people
say and spread at the truck stops. If you had actually read the
proposal, or looked at past CAFE standards, you would see that
these are fleet average numbers, not standards. There will be
no rule against having trucks and tow vehicles. If someone
buys a vehicle that gets mileage better than the fleet average
target, then someone else gets to buy a vehicle that that gets
less than the fleet average target number, just like it works
today. With 10 years of new technology hitting the market in
the next 10 years, tow vehicles and trailers should be that
much more aerodynamic, lightweight, full of more advanced
materials, and be more efficient. It is a win-win-win solution,
except for the nut-cases who are hoping that America fails.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 joh...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 14:42:33 -0700 (PDT), "W.W." <...@blazemail.com
On May 18, 3:55 pm, Frog B ritches <...@rib.it
Dear Frog Bee Ritches,
Whattsa matter Dusty, can't keep the B attached to the -ritches?
Quitcher B Itching fool.
HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW-HAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article <...@newsfe07.iadFrog B ritches <...@rib.it
Hey, that's a lot more powerful than a washing-machine motor.
<guffaw type=badly_muffled>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:47:42 -0400, richard <...@newsguy.com
On Mon, 18 May 2009 18:55:45 -0400, Frog B ritches <...@rib.it
In 1985 I drove a lincoln with a v8 and it got 35mpg then.
There have been 100mpg carbs put in test vehicles but those will never
be released to the general public due to the viscous circle of greed
and power.
After all, oil barrons can't be billionaires if everyone only fills up
once a month instead of daily or weekly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:07:57 -0500, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
I'm surprised the Oil Barons haven't destroyed all the bicycles in the
world.
Must be an oversight.
LZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 18 May 2009 21:21:08 -0500, nothermark <...@not.here
On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:47:42 -0400, richard <...@newsguy.comwrote:
Down hill with a tailwind?
Gov fuel standards:
We have revised the 1985-2007 MPG estimates to make them comparable
to the new 2008 and later MPG estimates!
Fuel Type
Regular
MPG (city)
14
MPG (highway)
22
MPG (combined)
17
>once a month instead of daily or weekly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:35:51 -0400, "Jerry" <...@spammers.com
"richard" <...@4ax.com...
Why in the world would you get rid of an 85 Lincoln v8 that got 35 mpg?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Jerry asks:
Not too hard to believe. I had a '80-something 4-6-8 Caddy that got
70+ mpg on a trip from Fancy Gap VA to Bottom NC. [for the humor
impaired, that's downhill all the way]
Morons have believed stories about 100 mpg carbs for generations. Not
only is it physicially impossible for a normal car to get a consistent
100 mpg on gasoline, but if it ever does become possible, fuel
suppliers would be even bigger morons than "richard" to oppose it.
Will - The self-appointed Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:11:55 -0400, JD <...@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:47:42 -0400, richard <...@newsguy.comwrote:
Total BULL SHIT. The physics alone proves the impossibility of such
even to pull its own weight.
Recently some other idiot said he had seen the patent on a 100 MPG
engine. Problem is, a patent is only good for 20 years and then it is
free. And ALL patents are public domain and anyone can see it.
--
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you are built upside down!
$$$$$$$$$%%
Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:53:26 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <...@rochester.rr.com
"richard" <...@newsguy.comThere have been 100mpg carbs put in test vehicles but those will never be
released to the general public due to the viscous circle of greed and
power.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Another uninformed person who believes that urban legend that has been going
around for over 50 years.
A gallon of gasoline has 125,000 BTU's in it.
It doesn't matter what kind of carburetor or fuel injector you use, it will
only give you 125,000 BTU's.
The never was any carburetor that gave 100 MPG..............EVER.
(unless it was on that 25 hp Briggs and Stratton that Frog was talking
about)
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 22:02:20 -0700 (PDT), "Jan...@aol.com" <...@aol.com
On May 18, 6:53�pm, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <...@rochester.rr.comwrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yabut Jerry, he prolly has them cow magnets on his
fuel line!
8^)
Jan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 07:44:47 -0700, Mickey <...@somewhere.com
You are so right.
If memory serves me correct, the legendary carb was the FISH carb.
Today's EFI systems are so much more efficient than any carb hoped to
be. Where's the 100 mpg cars?
As you mentioned, there is a fixed and known amount of energy in
gasoline. An internal combustion gas engine is about 25-30% thermally
efficient with the rest of the energy lost as heat. Out the tail pipe,
out the radiator, radiation from all the hotter than amb temps
components. Take what's left and that's what is left to do the actual
work of moving the vehicle and running all the ext accessories.
Doesn't take a genius to do the math and see there ain't no 100 mpg carb.
Before we can ever hope to see the mileage the myths keep telling us,
we've got to find a way to make use of that wasted heat.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:58:24 -0600, "Max" <...@sbcglobal.net
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <...@news.eternal-september.org...
http://www.rexresearch.com/ogle/1ogle.htm#nohoax
There's another guy here in El Paso who is getting between 50 and 60 MPG on
his Ford Crown Vic. (5.0L)
He happens to be a friend of my oldest son, with whom he went to school.
He is now an engineer at White Sands Missile Range. I won't give his full
name but will refer to him as Randy.
His "system" is a knock-off of Tom Ogle's. Basically, it works by
vaporizing the gasoline before introducing it into the cylinders.
Randy's explanation as to why the system was never utilized by the auto
industry revolves around 2 things.
1. The device is inherently unsafe. The system heats the gasoline to cause
vaporization.
2. The oil industry exerted pressure to prevent further development.
I know the system works; I've seen it. Randy *could* get the same mileage
that Ogle got but his system doesn't heat the gas as much and he drives more
"aggressively" than Ogle did.
There is no doubt in my mind that auto makers could produce autos that get
much better mileage than they presently do.
Max
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 19:43:18 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <...@rochester.rr.com
Max" <...@sbcglobal.netBasically, it works by vaporizing the gasoline before introducing it into
the cylinders.
Randy's explanation as to why the system was never utilized by the auto
industry revolves around 2 things.
1. The device is inherently unsafe. The system heats the gasoline to cause
vaporization.
2. The oil industry exerted pressure to prevent further development.
All bullshit !!!
It doesn't make any difference what you do with the gasoline, you will get
125,000 BTU's from a gallon.
What you are telling me is these guys can get more BTU's from their gasoline
than anyone else in the world.
I wonder if any scientists know these 2 people are defying the law of
physics.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:44:27 -0400, Neon John <...@never.com
On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:53:26 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
<...@rochester.rr.com
Just to throw some gasoline on this pissin' contest....
http://ecomodder.com/blog/hyperrocket-125-mpg-100-mph-3wheel-motorcycle/
This guy is a friend of a friend and someone I hope to meet when I
make it back to Deeeetroit.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:12:39 -0700, "Bruce S" <...@gmail.com
But if you read the story you find out that it claims to get 125 mpg at 61
mph. The 100 mph is incidental to the mileage, and probably optimistic,
since it is only a 250 cc engine and the trike weighs over 500 lbs.
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 May 2009 12:52:12 -0400, "Jack Cassidy" <...@tampabay.rr.com
"Bruce S" <...@news.astraweb.com...
If everyone would ride in small, light weight, aerodynamic vehicles with
tiny motors, without all the government mandated safety crap, Then fuel
mileage would go way up. I remember years ago when Subaru first started
importing. the 360, great mileage. I think it was Motor Trend that did a
road test in a supermarket parking lot because the tester was afraid to
actually go out in traffic with it.
The problem is they only come in small, and I need 2X large.
Jack Cassidy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 20 May 2009 13:03:37 -0500, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
0bama could set a great example if he would go everywhere in a
motorcycle sidecar instead of AF one and Marine one.
LZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 10:54:04 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A <...@aol.com
On May 20, 9:52 am, "Jack Cassidy" <...@tampabay.rr.com
When we're in Europe, we drive a new Renault Clio or a new Peugeot
206. Neither is small: they seat four adults nicely. Neither has a
tiny engine: both cruise solidly at 90 mph on the autoroutes, and both
have plenty of pep. Both get well over 35 mpg. And both are
meticulously constructed automobiles.
"Years ago" is irrelevant to now or five years from now.
ROTFLMAO !
They do NOT come only in small. And I'm betting you need 2X large
only a small portion of the time.
[In Europe, most cars have a trailer hitch. Many driveways have a
small utility trailer. If you don't have one, and need to haul stuff
from LeRoi Merlin or Castorama (think Home Depot and Lowes), you
borrow your neighbor's.] [Tradesmen use small vans that get the same
kind of mileage as the cars I described above.] [If you need a big
truck for a day or so, you rent one for a day or so. Even the
villages have truck rental places.]
Conservatives won't like that approach, solely because it's a tad
different from what they're used to, but it works well and energy
consumption is much lower.
:-)
Jenny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:36:28 -0500, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
You also forgot to mention that we have counties that are bigger than
European countries.
The county seat for Ajo, AZ is 130 miles away.
LZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A <...@aol.com
On May 23, 12:36�pm, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
A fact but, as usual, an irrelevant one.
So? It's much farther from Lisbon to Prague.
:-|
Jenny
(who frequently wonders if Linus has all his marbles)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:14:33 -0500, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
It's not irrelevant to a large person squeezed into a refrigerator with
4 wheels under it.
With 2000 gas stations and dining establishments along the way. On the
road from Ajo to Tucson there is one gas station
and if there is even one eating establishment, you probably wouldn't eat
there.
Tell the people on the Tohono O'odham reservation to squeeze into a
small car to take their families to town. Most of the adults weigh in
excess of 250
pounds and they have this goofy idea that as an independent nation they
are immune to goofy laws imposed by the nitwits in Washington.
Your thinking (and that of most liberals here) reminds me of a scene
from the movie "The Lost City" where a female "revolutionary tells a
nightclub owner
that his band can't play unless they get rid of the saxophone player.
The reasoning? The saxophone was invented by a Belgian and Belgians
were mistreating people in the Congo. To a sick mind these events are
related.
Get used to the idea that this is the USA, NOT some dinky European
country you can cross in an hour.
LZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:36:48 -0400, "Jack Cassidy" <...@tampabay.rr.com
"Jenny6833A" <...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
You cannot sell either one of the cars mentioned in the US, They don't meet
US emission and safety standards
The reason that Renault and Peugeot abandon the American market was the
Federal crash and emission standards added too much to the price of cars
that you would be hard pressed to give away in this country.
Nobody that drove one would buy it. Much like the Yugo, which was a Fiat
design built in Yugoslavia.
The early Japanese and Korean cars were not much better, But they were fast
learners quickly improved.
I didn't claim relevancy, it was just an offhand remark, about what I
remembered. I am quite happy when I can remember anything. <G
That is a true story, The *road test* was conducted in the parking lot of a
supermarket on City Line avenue in Philadelphia.
No, I need it all the time.
I don't live in Europe, I have no desire to live anywhere but in the United
States. We liked visiting in Ireland and England but were happy to come back
home.
My wife and I have a car manufactured in Korea that gets over 30 MPG and my
P/U truck that has a V 10 that doesn't do as well. I don't drive the truck
unless I need a truck and I keep it because I intend to eventually buy
another large Travel trailer.
I think Jenny that you paint with too broad a brush, Liberal, Conservative,
Nudist, Textile, we all have different opinions. and sometimes we even end
up on the same page.
BTW, I go to a VFW post every Sunday for breakfast with a group of friends
and several of them are nudists, (They all wear clothes to the post) and
this one elderly lady (70 something) told me she was told she wasn't welcome
at two different churches because of where she lives. Have you ever run into
that kind of discrimination because of your lifestyle?
Jack Cassidy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:39:45 -0400, JD <...@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:47:42 -0400, richard <...@newsguy.comwrote:
vis·cous /'v?sk?s/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vis-kuhs] Show IPA
–adjective 1. of a glutinous nature or consistency; sticky; thick;
adhesive.
2. having the property of viscosity.
The feds have been searching for these 'billions' for years and can't
find them. Could you PLEASE help them out?
--
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you are built upside down!
$$$$$$$$$%%
Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 08:00:35 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <...@rochester.rr.com
Whoever wrote........The Prez is talking about 26 mpg standards for p/us and
42mpg for autos in 2016..............
If we ever get to 42 MPG for autos, we will be using much less gas so the
gas taxes paid will go way down.
To counter this the government will put another $2.00 per gallon tax to get
the taxes paid to a pre-42 MPG amount.
So we will be paying the same amout per week for gas as we do now but will
all be driving a riding lawnmower size car.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
"JD" <...@4ax.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 08:04:05 -0500, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
I see the logic of this "small car" plan. If your car goes on the fritz
while tooling down the highway, you tie a rope to
it and tow it to the garage yourself.
No road service needed.
You could take along a Rottweiler as a towing vehicle too....option
#6...a hundred pound Rottweiler.
I like Rottweilers but they do slobber a lot.
LZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 08:21:32 -0500, "John A. Weeks III" <...@johnweeks.com
In article <...@mid.individual.net Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
If that were true, then we would see people in Europe towing their
cars with ropes because their fleet average is already over 40 MPG.
Since that isn't true, you are just blowing smoke out your butt again.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 joh...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 10:38:23 -0600, "Max" <...@sbcglobal.net
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <...@rochester.rr.com
Some of your comments seem to indicate a lack of knowledge about internal
combustion engines.
While I agree with your point that there is only a certain amount of energy
that can be extracted from a gallon of gasoline I don't think you realize
that the maximum is still to be achieved.
The technology exists to enable much better engine design and efficiency.
I have previously posted some of the improvements that are now available and
some that are still on the drawing boards.
The Infiniti "G" is a case in point. With an engine that produces 330 Hp,
zero to 60 in well under 7 seconds, and still averages 21 MPG overall in an
auto that weighs close to 2 tons, I suggest that there is evidence that
improvement over what has been is possible.
It might be well short of what our naive President is hoping for but it's
closer to achievable that what you seem to be insisting.
Max
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 08:22:36 -0500, "John A. Weeks III" <...@johnweeks.com
In article <...@news.eternal-september.org "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <...@rochester.rr.com
So, if we can pay the same amount, but produce far less pollution and
send far less money to overseas oil producers, you somehow see this as
a bad thing? What are you smoking morning?
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 joh...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 10:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A <...@aol.com
On May 23, 6:22�am, "John A. Weeks III" <...@johnweeks.com
John, they are "conservatives"! That means they're totally terrified
of any change whatever from the way they incorrectly recall that
things were when they were 12.
Conservatives don't want to conserve energy. They want only to
conserve a mythical past.
:-)
Jenny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 13:58:16 -0500, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
Jenny is probably another liberal energy hog like Al Gore who preaches
one thing while doing exactly the opposite.
LZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:31:46 -0700 (PDT), Jenny6833A <...@aol.com
On May 23, 11:58�am, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
Evidence? You have none. But, then, you almost never do. Just hot
air, and no life.
:-|
Jenny
(who is now sure that Linus has no marbles)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:18:42 -0500, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
The evidence is that liberals are hypocrites. The lifestyles they
preach are not the lifestyles they practice. That's for the peons.
But, then, you almost never do. Just hot
Can we send inspectors down to verify that you drive a dinky car and
have become a miserly user of energy?
Hmmmmnnnnn?
LZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 17:41:41 -0500, "Jerry" <...@charter.net
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <...@news.eternal-september.org...
You are so wrong, When I was in my automotive class over 30 some years ago,
A teacher made a comment I will never forget.
"The Foreign countries are so far advanced with the emissions that it will
be hard to catch up with them".
We had 25 cent a gallon gas and did not worry about it at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:08:20 -0400, matt_colie <...@nospam.net
Jerry,
Do you remember the instructor's name and institution?
I would like to look this up.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 09:00:03 -0400, matt_colie <...@nospam.net
You haven't heard the good news.
Many states are either starting (Oregon) or working on replacing the
motorfuel taxes with a "mileage tax" that is either billed by a GPS
based device that reports miles driven to the fuel pump or a pump that
requires you enter VIN and Odometer.
Most of these states have already said that the mileage tax will be
billed regardless of whether it was in the collecting state.
If you are getting about in one of the high speed electric wheel chairs
(this is not a joke - look up PUMA) that have been proposed, you will be
billed for mileage at the annual renewal.
It has been proven (much more convincingly the Anthropogenic Climate
Change), that you can not tax a country in prosperity, but we will get
to see one taxed into disparity.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 23 May 2009 13:11:01 -0500, nothermark <...@not.here
On Sat, 23 May 2009 09:00:03 -0400, matt_colie <...@nospam.netwrote:
NY and CA are racing to prove the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:29:28 -0500, Mike Hendrix <...@isp.com
On 23 May 2009 13:11:01 -0500, nothermark <...@not.here
We are living in interesting times. I am wondering if the Federal
Government is going to sign on to pay those states bills on a
permanent basis. If not what will happen?
Personally, I think it is time to pay the piper or suck it up.
There has got be a solution other than printing money.
mike
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 23 May 2009 18:05:55 -0700, "Frank Howell" <...@yahoo.com
But, but.........how else can politicans promise "It's Free"? You want them
to tell everybody there's no free lunch? Hah ha hah ha.
--
Frank Howell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:12:21 -0400, JD <...@gmail.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:29:28 -0500, Mike Hendrix <...@isp.comwrote:
Since they now belong to the entire citizenry, they should not have a
say in congress. No Senators, no representatives, no votes at all.
They are child dependents of the few adults left in the US.
--
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you are built upside down!
$$$$$$$$$%%
Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:40:30 -0500, Mike Hendrix <...@isp.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:12:21 -0400, JD <...@gmail.com
----------------------
Wow, that is an interesting thought with a lot of truth to it. That
is probably what SHOULD happen but I suspect there is no way to take
away a states Senators and Congress critters. But like you I do not
see why a "ward of the Fed Gov" would have any say in anything.
mike
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:52:21 -0500, Lone Haranguer <...@gmail.com
Wonder why we have a Bureau of Indian Affairs and still have the various
tribes described as "Independent Nations"?
LZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 09:05:04 -0700, "Bruce S" <...@gmail.com
Are you willing to extend that thought to its logical next step? Everyone
who receives more money from the government than he contributes is also a
"ward of the Fed Gov" - that includes welfare and social security recipients
as well.
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 24 May 2009 13:10:58 -0400, JD <...@gmail.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 09:05:04 -0700, "Bruce S" <...@gmail.comwrote:
Welfare yes, SSI no. SSI is a fund based on a contract to those
eligible. Welfare is, well, welfare. A gift from the largess of
people who work to those who don't. I would NOT include those that
can't fend for themselves but not the vast majority that can.
dean
--
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you are built upside down!
$$$$$$$$$%%
Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:55:47 -0500, Mike Hendrix <...@isp.com
On Sun, 24 May 2009 09:05:04 -0700, "Bruce S" <...@gmail.comwrote:
-----------------------
Yes. To its logical next step which isn't quiet like you propose.
Welfare: yes no voice in gov.
SSI: No because the recipients were FORCED to enter into that
contract.
Other Government payments (military retirement checks, military, civil
service checks & retirement checks) have nothing to do with welfare.
Those folks are working for what they receive under a contract with
the government.
States that get into trouble and have to be bailed out need to loose
their voting privileges until they repay the bail out.
Now that is just my opinion.
mike
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 25 May 2009 11:32:02 -0500, nothermark <...@not.here
On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:55:47 -0500, Mike Hendrix <...@isp.comwrote:
I'd rather see the states put into a Federal bakruptcy court. The
basic reason they are in trouble is fat deals with the state
employee's and retiree's. If they can stiff the auto workers they
should be able to do the same to the government workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 26 May 2009 09:56:55 -0500, Mike Hendrix <...@isp.com
On Sat, 23 May 2009 09:00:03 -0400, matt_colie <...@nospam.netwrote:
----------------------------
Putting states into bankruptcy court may be a good thing. Then a
receiver could make decisions on spending for the folks who obviously
can not make those decisions.
mike
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|