gas prices too high or too low?

What about milk prices? I paid $5.00 for one gallon of milk the other day. Should we start drinking gas? The milk prices go up when the gas prices go up. The gas prices go up because people know the mentality of Americans. If we want it, we'll buy it. The more we want it, the more we'll pay for it. SUV's are using more gas than most other vehicles. The more SUV's we have, an even lower supply of gasoline exists. Do you know who's making money on this? The rich!!!!! They just keep getting richer and we let them. It's a big circle!!!!

Not only can I not afford the gas prices, but I can't afford groceries either at this rate. Prices go up 10 - 15% a year. What about salaries? 3% if we are lucky!!



"Sgt. Sausage" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "ben" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> > for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices
>
> Which thoughts exactly?
>
> Relative to the world, I think we're far to low on
> gas prices.
>
> Relative to past domestic prices, taking into
> consideration inflation, I still think we're too low.
>
> On the other hand, in general, I think they're too
> high -- but only because I'm a consumer seeking
> to reduce my expenses. I've no idea what the "ideal"
> price of a gallon is in the U.S, but I'd like to think it's
> a helluva lot lower than we're paying now and I'd like
> to think we actually have a chance of reducing the
> current prices to that "ideal" price.
>
> > and if ya think
> > driving an SUV is unpatriotic?
>
> Dumb question.
>
> Is drinking coffee unpatriotic?
>
> Is posting to usenet unpatriotic?
>
> Is masturbation unpatriotic?
>
> Who cares.
>
> > In my own mind its a complicated
> > question that can effect US national security (the part where we in
> > the USA are dependent upon foreign oil).
>
> It's a lot more complicated than that. A lot.
>
> > It was a topic that was sort
> > of covered in the last issue of national geographic so I posted
> > another rant on why I think in general SUVs suck.
>
> Everything sucks for *somebody*.
>
> I happen to be in agreement. SUVs have a lot of suckage,
> but definitely not, in particular, because they are "unpatriotic".
>
>
> > http://www.phaster.com/road_trips/are_suvs_unpatriotic.html
> >
> >
> > I just filled up my land cruiser and it took $100+, oh well its my toy
> > and its the only vehicle that can accomplish what I want it to do, so
> > I don't mind paying for the priviliage of driving the darn thing, but
> > with gas prices all over the news and oil prices now just dropping are
> > people going to ignore the recient gas price spike??????
>
>
> The patriotic folks out there have fought and died for
> exactly the freedom to drive an SUV -- suckage or not.
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:38:16 -0400, "Veronica Thomas"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What about milk prices? I paid $5.00 for one gallon of milk the other day. Should we start drinking gas? The milk prices go up when the gas prices go up. The gas prices go up because people know the mentality of Americans. If we want it, we'll buy it. The more we want it, the more we'll pay for it. SUV's are using more gas than most other vehicles. The more SUV's we have, an even lower supply of gasoline exists. Do you know who's making money on this? The rich!!!!! They just keep getting richer and we let them. It's a big circle!!!!
>
>Not only can I not afford the gas prices, but I can't afford groceries either at this rate. Prices go up 10 - 15% a year. What about salaries? 3% if we are lucky!!


Yes, let's blame the rich!! How dare they be allowed to earn more
money then the average citizen. Hey, I have an idea, how about we
take their money from them and give it to you and me. That certainly
sounds more fair..... at least to those of us making less then the
rich. (By the way, exactly what is "rich"? I need to know so I never
exceed that threshold. I don't want to ever be blamed for the worlds
problems ya know......)

Matt
99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4

Matt Mead wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:38:16 -0400, "Veronica Thomas"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What about milk prices? I paid $5.00 for one gallon of milk the
>> other day. Should we start drinking gas? The milk prices go up
>> when the gas prices go up. The gas prices go up because people know
>> the mentality of Americans. If we want it, we'll buy it. The more
>> we want it, the more we'll pay for it. SUV's are using more gas
>> than most other vehicles. The more SUV's we have, an even lower
>> supply of gasoline exists. Do you know who's making money on this?
>> The rich!!!!! They just keep getting richer and we let them. It's
>> a big circle!!!!
>>
>> Not only can I not afford the gas prices, but I can't afford
>> groceries either at this rate. Prices go up 10 - 15% a year. What
>> about salaries? 3% if we are lucky!!
>
>
> Yes, let's blame the rich!!

No. Blame capitalism and the tendency for wage disparity to increase as the
'leisure class' takes more and more for itself.

> How dare they be allowed to earn more
> money then the average citizen.

That word 'earn' is a bit slippery. Did Ken Lay 'earn' his millions? How
about those who inherited their wealth?

<more idiocy deleted>

I'd like to see gas stay high for the next few years so people will
think about alternate energy, diesel, motorcycles, along with high
interest rates to make people want to build and DIY instead of
buy,buy,buy. Maybe we need the depression.

Cal Cerise wrote:
> I'd like to see gas stay high for the next few years so people will
> think about alternate energy, diesel, motorcycles, along with high
> interest rates to make people want to build and DIY instead of
> buy,buy,buy. Maybe we need the depression.

A depression will produce casualties, i.e. people who will die because
the services they need either are not available or they cannot afford
them. Please prepare of a list of people who you are willing to see die.
Please do not include my name or yours on the list.

Bob Kolker

Veronica Thomas wrote:
> Dave,
>
> You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line EVERYTHING.
> A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle comes
> out, everyone wants it. They have to have the newest and bestest thing
> around, no matter what the consequence. We have become a self satisfying,
> "beat the Jones" society. The future to most people is tomorrow, next week,
> next month. Certainly not 10 years down the road.
>
> Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it. People
> today don't know what united means, much less the work conservation!!
>
> Have a great day.
>
>
> "Dave Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
>>>you're just talking out of your ass.
>>
>>Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply not
>>practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
>>within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
>>supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a
>
> lot
>
>>of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not,
>
> this
>
>>country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around personal
>>vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate
>
> whether
>
>>it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
>>
>>Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we
>
> were
>
>>willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
>
> miles.
>
>>Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
>>thing.
>>
>>Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
>>accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
>
> SUV's.
>
>>I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them
>
> as
>
>>often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most
>
> of
>
>>the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
>>environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than
>
> their
>
>>share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
>>there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me, and
>>I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
>>doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>

There is a real point in buying what one can afford, as opposed to
"buying" something with payments stretched out from five to seven years.

In the first case, you own the car. In the second case, you never own
anything - just the condition of being "upside down" in the payments,
that is, owing more than the car is worth.

I'd rather pay cash for a Hyundai cheapo than buy a Cadillac Escalade on
a time payment plan.

There are even people out there who will take a second mortgage on their
homes and go buy cars with that money - thereby risking their homes if
they have to default on the car loan.

Only fools risk everything for the toy of the month.

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

Bama Brian wrote:

> Veronica Thomas wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line
>> EVERYTHING.
>> A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle
>> comes
>> out, everyone wants it. They have to have the newest and bestest thing
>> around, no matter what the consequence. We have become a self
>> satisfying,
>> "beat the Jones" society. The future to most people is tomorrow, next
>> week,
>> next month. Certainly not 10 years down the road.
>>
>> Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it. People
>> today don't know what united means, much less the work conservation!!
>>
>> Have a great day.
>>
>>
>> "Dave Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
>>>>you're just talking out of your ass.
>>>
>>>Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply
>>>not practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of
>>>living within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even
>>>basic supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible
>>>for a
>>
>> lot
>>
>>>of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not,
>>
>> this
>>
>>>country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around
>>>personal
>>>vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate
>>
>> whether
>>
>>>it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
>>>
>>>Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we
>>
>> were
>>
>>>willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
>>
>> miles.
>>
>>>Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
>>>thing.
>>>
>>>Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
>>>accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
>>
>> SUV's.
>>
>>>I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them
>>
>> as
>>
>>>often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most
>>
>> of
>>
>>>the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
>>>environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than
>>
>> their
>>
>>>share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
>>>there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me,
>>>and
>>>I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
>>>doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>>>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>>>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>>
>
> There is a real point in buying what one can afford, as opposed to
> "buying" something with payments stretched out from five to seven years.
>
> In the first case, you own the car. In the second case, you never own
> anything - just the condition of being "upside down" in the payments,
> that is, owing more than the car is worth.
>
> I'd rather pay cash for a Hyundai cheapo than buy a Cadillac Escalade on
> a time payment plan.
>
> There are even people out there who will take a second mortgage on their
> homes and go buy cars with that money - thereby risking their homes if
> they have to default on the car loan.
>
> Only fools risk everything for the toy of the month.
>
Only problem is the Escalade will last a lot longer. I grew up in the
country where the average age of a vehicle is 10 years or more. Plenty of
people still drive their 80's Chevy trucks or even a few from the 70's.
The Escalade has a truck frame hidden under all the leather and cup holders
but in 15 years it will be driving up and down a country road while the
Hyundai is setting in a junk yard. In that case financing for 5 years does
seem worth it. People complain about SUV's and trucks wasteing gas but
then buy/lease a new car every 2-3 years, that wastes as much or more
energy. I prefer to spend a bit more for a quality product that will last
longer. My in laws are always calling us rich because I won't buy my tools
or clothes from odd lots like them but I watch them spend more money
replacing the same item three or four times because it doesn't last and I
buy something once, so in the long run I come out ahead.

Its like the ole saying goes, "you get what ya pay for." Pay a little
more the first time and you won't have to spend a little lesser amount
over and over again.


--
twins0203
------------------------------------------------------------------------
twins0203's Profile: http://www.sseriesowners.com/forum/member.php?userid=2
View this thread: http://www.sseriesowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1816

Eugene wrote:

> Bama Brian wrote:
>
>
>>Veronica Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>Dave,
>>>
>>>You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line
>>>EVERYTHING.
>>>A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle
>>>comes
>>>out, everyone wants it. They have to have the newest and bestest thing
>>>around, no matter what the consequence. We have become a self
>>>satisfying,
>>>"beat the Jones" society. The future to most people is tomorrow, next
>>>week,
>>>next month. Certainly not 10 years down the road.
>>>
>>>Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it. People
>>>today don't know what united means, much less the work conservation!!
>>>
>>>Have a great day.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Dave Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
>>>>>you're just talking out of your ass.
>>>>
>>>>Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply
>>>>not practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of
>>>>living within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even
>>>>basic supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible
>>>>for a
>>>
>>>lot
>>>
>>>
>>>>of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not,
>>>
>>>this
>>>
>>>
>>>>country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around
>>>>personal
>>>>vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate
>>>
>>>whether
>>>
>>>
>>>>it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
>>>>
>>>>Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we
>>>
>>>were
>>>
>>>
>>>>willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
>>>
>>>miles.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
>>>>thing.
>>>>
>>>>Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
>>>>accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
>>>
>>>SUV's.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them
>>>
>>>as
>>>
>>>
>>>>often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most
>>>
>>>of
>>>
>>>
>>>>the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
>>>>environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than
>>>
>>>their
>>>
>>>
>>>>share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
>>>>there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me,
>>>>and
>>>>I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
>>>>doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>>>>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>>>>-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>>>
>>There is a real point in buying what one can afford, as opposed to
>>"buying" something with payments stretched out from five to seven years.
>>
>>In the first case, you own the car. In the second case, you never own
>>anything - just the condition of being "upside down" in the payments,
>>that is, owing more than the car is worth.
>>
>>I'd rather pay cash for a Hyundai cheapo than buy a Cadillac Escalade on
>>a time payment plan.
>>
>>There are even people out there who will take a second mortgage on their
>>homes and go buy cars with that money - thereby risking their homes if
>>they have to default on the car loan.
>>
>>Only fools risk everything for the toy of the month.
>>
>
> Only problem is the Escalade will last a lot longer. I grew up in the
> country where the average age of a vehicle is 10 years or more. Plenty of
> people still drive their 80's Chevy trucks or even a few from the 70's.
> The Escalade has a truck frame hidden under all the leather and cup holders
> but in 15 years it will be driving up and down a country road while the
> Hyundai is setting in a junk yard. In that case financing for 5 years does
> seem worth it. People complain about SUV's and trucks wasteing gas but
> then buy/lease a new car every 2-3 years, that wastes as much or more
> energy. I prefer to spend a bit more for a quality product that will last
> longer. My in laws are always calling us rich because I won't buy my tools
> or clothes from odd lots like them but I watch them spend more money
> replacing the same item three or four times because it doesn't last and I
> buy something once, so in the long run I come out ahead.
>

Good point. Maybe I should have said, "pay cash for a Toyota Camry...". ;D

I drive a GMC 2000 pickup I bought new. In four years and 50K miles,
the only trouble I've had was when the parking brake broke. I'd say
that was reasonable service - including the fact that the original tires
are still on it! But I bought it with cloth seats, and the only
concession I made to style was to buy a locking differential rather than
a FWD system.

I get good service from my vehicles because I maintain them. I think
that the real problem with cheap cars is that they don't get the same
level of maintenance that the more expensive cars do.

Too many people think, "Oh, it's old - but if it just gets me through to
the end of the year..." Then, when the cheap car throws a rod, they go
out and sink themselves into debt by buying something they can't afford
on a time payment contract.

--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:23:43 -0400, "Veronica Thomas"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave,
>
>You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line EVERYTHING.
>A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle comes
>out, everyone wants it.

I assume you are making a distinction between "want" and "acquire".
After all, if no one would "want" a $15,000 car, how come the car
companies sell so many thousands of them?

Or maybe you mean that people "want" a $40,000 car, and are forced to
settle for a cheaper vehicle, since they cannot afford $40,000. Maybe
you should tell us why someone should not "want" the more expensive
vehicle? Do you think it is inferior in some way to the $15,000
vehicle?

[deleted]

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it.
And one path we shall never choose, and that is
the path of surrender, or submission."
----President John F. Kennedy

"Veronica Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

Daddy and husband doesn't want his wife and daughter killed in the rice
mobile when ARNOLD shifts lanes in his hummer - for perceived safety -
this weak intimidated women buy BIG SUV's to feel safe - then any
RATIONAL man knows he must buy a big truck or big suv so that he is safe
so that when these emotionally insecure women put on makeup in thier suv
going 80 down the highway and dont pay attention to the road they wont
kill him.

So it is a positive feedback loop - the cars get bigger and bigger and
suck more and more gas all because some little rich girl didn't feel
safe on the highway.


> Dave,
>
> You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line
> EVERYTHING. A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new
> $40,000 vehicle comes out, everyone wants it. They have to have the
> newest and bestest thing around, no matter what the consequence. We
> have become a self satisfying, "beat the Jones" society. The future
> to most people is tomorrow, next week, next month. Certainly not 10
> years down the road.
>
> Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it.
> People today don't know what united means, much less the work
> conservation!!
>
> Have a great day.
>
>
> "Dave Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus
>> > pass you're just talking out of your ass.
>>
>> Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is
>> simply not practical in most areas, and very few people have the
>> luxury of living within walking distance of their employment or
>> recreation or even basic supplies like groceries, and public
>> transportation is not feasible for a
> lot
>> of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or
>> not,
> this
>> country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around
>> personal vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to
>> debate
> whether
>> it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
>>
>> Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s,
>> we
> were
>> willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
> miles.
>> Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a
>> good thing.
>>
>> Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
>> accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
> SUV's.
>> I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive)
>> them
> as
>> often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine
>> most
> of
>> the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
>> environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more
>> than
> their
>> share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do.
>> If there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with
>> me, and I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving
>> in general doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
>

[email protected] (Cal Cerise) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I'd like to see gas stay high for the next few years so people will
> think about alternate energy, diesel, motorcycles, along with high
> interest rates to make people want to build and DIY instead of
> buy,buy,buy. Maybe we need the depression.
>

Paris Hilton is never gonna drive the highway in a small honda electric car
- screw you and your energy problems - she wants a big car that makes her
feel safe and all the energy arguements in the world are wasted on that
idiot.

"Veronica Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> What about milk prices? I paid $5.00 for one gallon of milk the other


There isn't any inflation in this country - silly fool - listen at what
greenspan tells you - who needs milk - it is unhealthy anyways - has
cholesterol - do like the chinese - rice and water and be happy you still
have your life.

"Robert J. Kolker" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:T2MCc.105742$eu.87497@attbi_s02:

Spoiled idiot daddy's little princess is first on my list - she is the
reason we got into this positive feedback loop about bigger and bigger
vehicles and houses far BEYOND what was needed and WASTED resources.

Next weak pussy whipped men that contributed to the idiocy of this
spoiled princess because he needed the promise of a wet stinky hole to
make him happy - *notice I said promise - it rarely comes to fruition.


>
>
> Cal Cerise wrote:
>> I'd like to see gas stay high for the next few years so people will
>> think about alternate energy, diesel, motorcycles, along with high
>> interest rates to make people want to build and DIY instead of
>> buy,buy,buy. Maybe we need the depression.
>
> A depression will produce casualties, i.e. people who will die because
> the services they need either are not available or they cannot afford
> them. Please prepare of a list of people who you are willing to see
die.
> Please do not include my name or yours on the list.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
>

Matt Mead <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Yes, let's blame the rich!! How dare they be allowed to earn more
> money then the average citizen. Hey, I have an idea, how about we
> take their money from them and give it to you and me. That certainly
> sounds more fair..... at least to those of us making less then the
> rich. (By the way, exactly what is "rich"? I need to know so I never
> exceed that threshold. I don't want to ever be blamed for the worlds
> problems ya know......)
>
> Matt
> 99 V-10 Super Duty, Super Cab 4x4

I don't want thier money - I can't eat green paper - I want thier land
so I can lay about nude all day and not be bothered by thugs with badges
- and I want thier pools and jacuzzi so I can swim and lounge all day,
and I want thier trees and crops so I can build structures and eat as I
see fit. They can have ALL the money in the world if they will just
give me these things. They can have all the GOLD too, if they will give
me these things. However they won't - they want these things for
themselves and don't want me or anyone else coming into thier lands or
jacuzzis or cutting down thier trees or eating thier crops - less for
them.

I want to live like adam and eve and have a fruit tree. Of course once
I get rich and am living like adam and eve and have all the free food
and free space I could ever want I don't want to go back into poverty
where I can't - so I am sure gonna try and protect my little piece of
heaven.

There is only so much land on this planet - why do our leaders let
populations form that cannot be educated or fed in ways that make them
happy? I don't want to be around a bunch of ****ed off starving people
ready to eat me cause they see I have something they dont have - so I am
going to hide out with my rich buddies and try to get away from the
starving poor. Class warfare - much better to make everyone in the
population rich (having free food, free time, free land) so that there
is no more class warfare - as long as people are born into poverty it
wont happen - work on the problem from both ends - work on the poverty
and work on the births - everyone has a much better standard of living.

I don't want to turn on the TV and expected to feel bad cause millions
are starving in Africa - if they were given more food and thier births
reduced and educated better my children will not have to see skeleton
babies dying from mal nutrition in the future. The world leaders are
allowing this to happen so one day one of these starving africans gets a
suitcase nuke and blows up new york city cause he is a ****ed off person
- we need to nip this in the bud.

I just don't understand why someone making hundreds of thousands of dollars
a year for 20 years off the Oil company they own, then, when times are
toughest for all Americans, we go to war (which we are paying for) so that
they can make even more money from their oil companies and all they can
think about is raising the price of the gasoline so that they can keep
making the same profit, if not more. To me it would be, should be, more
American to take a personal hit for the good of less fortunate Americans and
let the economy thrive. I wanted to say Bush instead of "the rich" in my
original email, but didn't want this to end up in a political battle.


"Veronica Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave,
>
> You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line EVERYTHING.
> A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle comes
> out, everyone wants it. They have to have the newest and bestest thing
> around, no matter what the consequence. We have become a self satisfying,
> "beat the Jones" society. The future to most people is tomorrow, next
week,
> next month. Certainly not 10 years down the road.
>
> Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it. People
> today don't know what united means, much less the work conservation!!
>
> Have a great day.
>
>
> "Dave Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> > > you're just talking out of your ass.
> >
> > Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply
not
> > practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
> > within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
> > supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a
> lot
> > of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not,
> this
> > country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around
personal
> > vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate
> whether
> > it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
> >
> > Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we
> were
> > willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
> miles.
> > Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
> > thing.
> >
> > Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
> > accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
> SUV's.
> > I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them
> as
> > often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine
most
> of
> > the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
> > environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than
> their
> > share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
> > there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me,
and
> > I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
> > doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>

I already spend as little as possible. I have an average house, nothing
huge. My husband and I have had one car for the last 3 years, which by the
way, gets about 32 miles per gallon. It is a 1999, which we bought new,
only because our 1988 was totaled by an idiot in a corvette while talking on
his cell phone. Most everything I buy, I buy at a discount and there aren't
many luxuries. I'm not talking the talk and not walking the walk. I agree
with you about working on ourselves as citizens and not as a nation. I
think were trying to make the same point on that issue. But why do I need
to send my money to AFRICA? What about helping AMERICA?

"Veronica Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I just don't understand why someone making hundreds of thousands of
dollars
> a year for 20 years off the Oil company they own, then, when times are
> toughest for all Americans, we go to war (which we are paying for) so that
> they can make even more money from their oil companies and all they can
> think about is raising the price of the gasoline so that they can keep
> making the same profit, if not more. To me it would be, should be, more
> American to take a personal hit for the good of less fortunate Americans
and
> let the economy thrive. I wanted to say Bush instead of "the rich" in my
> original email, but didn't want this to end up in a political battle.
>
>
> "Veronica Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Dave,
> >
> > You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line
EVERYTHING.
> > A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle
comes
> > out, everyone wants it. They have to have the newest and bestest thing
> > around, no matter what the consequence. We have become a self
satisfying,
> > "beat the Jones" society. The future to most people is tomorrow, next
> week,
> > next month. Certainly not 10 years down the road.
> >
> > Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it. People
> > today don't know what united means, much less the work conservation!!
> >
> > Have a great day.
> >
> >
> > "Dave Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus
pass
> > > > you're just talking out of your ass.
> > >
> > > Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply
> not
> > > practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
> > > within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even
basic
> > > supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for
a
> > lot
> > > of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or
not,
> > this
> > > country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around
> personal
> > > vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate
> > whether
> > > it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
> > >
> > > Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s,
we
> > were
> > > willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
> > miles.
> > > Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a
good
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
> > > accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
> > SUV's.
> > > I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive)
them
> > as
> > > often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine
> most
> > of
> > > the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
> > > environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than
> > their
> > > share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do.
If
> > > there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me,
> and
> > > I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in
general
> > > doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> >
> >
>
>

"Veronica Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I already spend as little as possible. I have an average house,
> nothing huge. My husband and I have had one car for the last 3 years,
> which by the way, gets about 32 miles per gallon. It is a 1999, which
> we bought new, only because our 1988 was totaled by an idiot in a
> corvette while talking on his cell phone. Most everything I buy, I
> buy at a discount and there aren't many luxuries. I'm not talking the
> talk and not walking the walk. I agree with you about working on
> ourselves as citizens and not as a nation. I think were trying to
> make the same point on that issue. But why do I need to send my money
> to AFRICA? What about helping AMERICA?

I love my life.

I live in a singlewide 1974 trailer, my friend lives in a 1993 econoline
conversion van parked in front of walmart, if we have to get around the
city - we ride our bikes or walk - longer trips we take his van. I buy
from the salvation army and ebay if I HAVE to buy, sometimes walmart,
often times I go into the mall and if someone has bought this huge meal
and only ate a few bites of it and then want to throw the rest away I
either ask if I can have it or wait til they leave and eat off thier
plate. I go to the produce market and buy sweet potatoes and eat them -
natures perfect vegetable - sometimes I eat from my small garden outside
the trailer - sometimes I see dumpsters around my city filled with
things I need - I get them. You and your husband probably consider this
beneath you. I used to work at IBM in high levels of corporate power,
now I work at a library stocking book shelves and am much happier not
worrying about who is gunning for me or trying to stab me in the back to
get my big paying job. I watch a lot of tv, listen to a lot of music,
read a lot of books and try to comprehend a lot of news. You say why do
you need to send your money to africa - what about helping America but
then say lets all love each other beyond the concept of NATION STATE -
the 2 do not go together - why should you send money to africa?? Why
should bush and the other rich send money to you?? Open your mind. If
you are going to be selfish - don't blame Bush for being that way too.
Quit thinking in terms of MONEY - start thinking in terms of HAPPINESS -
if bill gates has 50 billion and is MISERABLE and stressed out - and I
have 2 dollars and am happy - who really is doing better? I am seeing a
lot of hate and misery on this board - life is too short for that.
Money only has the power over you that you give it - money stopped
determining my happiness many years ago.

My friend, he used to install corian counter tops - so many families
would put them in thier new big homes - I think for social status - some
of these people were happy, some weren't - but they were all pretty RICH
- money does not determine happiness.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/happy.html

A pretty good article by one of the worlds top economists, but I have
been unemployed several times, and I was still very happy - I could
still do the things important to my happiness - go to the library and
read a book - listen to some cd's, surf the internet, talk on discussion
groups with other citizens. Job advancement stopped mattering to my
happiness.

never driven a mini van, but have been in a few (like the grand
caravan, which I thought as a passenger had a pretty nice ride and
pretty comfy), just like any other car or station wagon.

To me the rules governing light trucks are a joke, a contractor would
never use a PT Cruiser as a work truck (where the hell would ya put
lumber, gas pipes, chop saws, etc....)

The PT cruiser for example uses a loop hole to get around CAFE
standards, I've been around more than my fare share of lumber yards,
plumbing supply stores, glass shops, etc. and never once have I seen a
PT cruiser used as a work truck (even thought ya say it looks like one
of them old ones).

I just think that the laws as written are used by auto makers to try
and sell the public that trucks (i.e. SUVs are tough), when in reality
it seems that in a majority of cases SUVs are used are passanger
vehicles, and car makers like to classify as many vehicles as light
trucks in order to avoid a gas guzzler tax, safety regs, etc.).

in my book I consider my own 80 series land cruiser, as just another
a car (with a specialized purpose), same with jeeps. The astro is a
van, a pick up w/ lumber racks in my book is a bare min of a vehicle
in the truck class and if ya want to talk trucks I kind of start out
thinking MOG

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=unimog

which could eat an astro for breakfast and still have room to haul the
carcass of an H2 "hummer" if ya ever get a chance check one out cause
those things are beasts......






xenman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I hate to tell ya but minivans are also considered trucks. Ever
> ridden in a Ford Aerostar or a Chevy Astro? Definitely a truck.
>
> SUV and station wagons are alike because they are both not
> sedans, they are both more utilitarian than sedans, they both
> have an enclosed cargo area accessible from the passenger
> area. They both come in 2WD and 4WD, althought most SUVs
> are either 2WD or 4WD, while some station wagons are only
> 2WD and other station wagons are only 4WD. On average
> SUVs are larger than station wagons, but not always.
>
> So is a PT Cruiser an SUV? Is it a station wagon? Is it a truck?
> It looks like a delivery truck from a few generations in the past.
>
>
> On 12 Jun 2004 20:10:00 -0700, [email protected] (ben) wrote:
>
> >hate to tell ya but SUVs are different than minivans and station
> >wagons because they are considered trucks....
> >
> >a truck by def of the federal gov. does not have too meet the same gas
> >and safety standards as a passanger car
> >
> >"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
> >post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
> >(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
> >27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
> >given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
> >will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."
> >
> >http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=156,241&sid=241&article=6769
> >
> >(which is why auto makers like classifying SUVs as trucks).....
> >
> >the bottome line in a capitalist culture is all about $$$$$$$$$
> >
> >
> >