|
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:39:43 -0500, Dillon Pyron
<invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote: >BTW, why does California require more liability coverage for vehicles >with a GVW of greater than 4400 lbs? Because they kill people? That is a great law. In Illinois, liability coverage is the same no matter what vehicle you drive. Hummer is the same as a Civic. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: > >>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives simply >>don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to open up our >>DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the environuts. > > Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it > increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite > resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. > > The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to the > golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know is > going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a range > of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on the > expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will only > become more so as the price of oil increases. > I'll disagree with this. While I am no huge fan of Chevy these days, the Volt has a very good chance of being successful. 40 Miles per charge on pure electric, and a small motor to charge the battery and extend the range to ~ 300 miles. The 40 miles is more than enough for most people. Of course, we'll have to see how it actually performs once released, but it's a nice looking car, and the pricetag will be affordable. Tesla is working on releasing the model S, a 4-door that does a 45 minute charge for a 300 mile trip. The price is 50 Grand after the Federal tax credit, and the car is good looking, fast and efficient. >>For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best energy >>density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are not mentioning >>that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they degrade,and also need >>WATER to keep them clean. > > Nuclear reactors only have a 30-50 year life and they are a lot bigger > problem to dispose of. They also require water to cool them. So what? Water is fine. And nuclear waste is much smaller than it used to be (ie: efficiency is growing). The disposal of said waste CAN be done in a clean, efficient manner. It is cleaner than the exhaust that is thrown up by coal plants... -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-04, jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle >> costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle. > > what a crock! have you even insured a freakin' car? In my experience, the collision insurance for small cars is higher, but the liability is higher for the beasts. I went from a used Chrysler minivan to a Civic Si. The liability is about 30% lower on the brand new car than it was on the minivan. With full coverage, my Si only costs a couple hundred a year more to insure than the minivan did with liability alone. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-04, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:t_qdnWPaoJG7FErUnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> fft1976@gmail.com wrote: >>> I'm beginning to think that lowered heavy but unibody SUV would be the >>> safest vehicle of all. What's the heaviest car-based SUV, by the way? >> >> forget the suv - minivans are the way to go if you want capacity in a >> safe vehicle. >> > > SUV's original purpose was mainly off-road. Like the old Army Jeep and Land > Rovers.Few people use them for that stuff these days. Most SUV's are incapable of off-road travel these days. The suspension cannot handle it. Many dealers require you to sign a waiver saying that you will not take the SUV off-road, and if you do, damage will not be covered by warranty. > > and the old Land Rovers were only 4 cylinder! they still hauled a lot. Most Jeep Wranglers are 4's and 6's, and are quite capable towers. > > (just saw a neat PBS "Great Cars" show last week about Land Rovers! > Today's was about BMW.) > I always found the Land Rover to be ugly as hell and overpriced. If I wanted something for off-road, I'd probably pick up a used Jeep... I only say used because who knows if the new company will maintain quality (which has already deteriorated some)... -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> >>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives >>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to >>>open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the >>>environuts. >> >> Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >> increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >> resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. >> >> The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to the >> golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know is >> going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a range >> of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on the >> expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will only >> become more so as the price of oil increases. >> > > I'll disagree with this. While I am no huge fan of Chevy these days, > the Volt has a very good chance of being successful. > > 40 Miles per charge on pure electric, and a small motor to charge the > battery and extend the range to ~ 300 miles. The 40 miles is more > than enough for most people. Of course, we'll have to see how it > actually performs once released, but it's a nice looking car, and the > pricetag will be affordable. EXCEPT that most people are not going to be replacing their current gas vehicles for an electric car. Nor will there be electric light trucks or SUVs. Hybrid SUV's do not take the place of the workhorse SUVs. You won't be towing anything with one of them. > > Tesla is working on releasing the model S, a 4-door that does a 45 > minute charge for a 300 mile trip. The price is 50 Grand after the > Federal tax credit, and the car is good looking, fast and efficient. except that recharging infrastructure is not in place yet. > >>>For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best >>>energy density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are not >>>mentioning that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they >>>degrade,and also need WATER to keep them clean. >> >> Nuclear reactors only have a 30-50 year life and they are a lot >> bigger problem to dispose of. They also require water to cool them. > > So what? Water is fine. And nuclear waste is much smaller than it > used to be (ie: efficiency is growing). The disposal of said waste > CAN be done in a clean, efficient manner. It is cleaner than the > exhaust that is thrown up by coal plants... > > If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can the US. And one hailstorm or heavy storm destroys your solar panels. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
In message <slrngtlm6p.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local>, Joe
<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> writes >I always found the Land Rover to be ugly as hell and overpriced. If I >wanted something for off-road, I'd probably pick up a used Jeep... I >only say used because who knows if the new company will maintain >quality (which has already deteriorated some)... I'll say it has, it's the most unreliable car on British roads according to Motoring Which? -- Clive |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
In message <Xns9BE65450290EFjyanikkuanet@74.209.136.84>, Jim Yanik
<jyanik@abuse.gov> writes >If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can the US. Like Three Mile Island? -- Clive |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Jim Yanik wrote: > > If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can the US. > You bet! And, the French model is probably the best volume/record wise and a Westinghouse design at that. If we could muster the courage to build 100 plants evenly distributed in the US, a major dent in foreign oil imports could be affected. It won't be long before plug in electric cars for urban areas will become viable. But I'm sure all we'll hear is more song 'n dance smoke 'n mirrors from Washington. When you get to be my age, the same ol' tune just starts to git a little more boring... JT |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-07, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in > news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > >> On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>> >>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives >>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to >>>>open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the >>>>environuts. >>> >>> Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>> increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >>> resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. > > Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. > And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve that by > going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. > Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. That wasn't me, but I'll disagree. New discoveries or not, Oil is not being produced. Or, if it is, not nearly at the rate we are using it. > >>> >>> The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to the >>> golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know is >>> going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a range >>> of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on the >>> expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will only >>> become more so as the price of oil increases. >>> >> >> I'll disagree with this. While I am no huge fan of Chevy these days, >> the Volt has a very good chance of being successful. >> >> 40 Miles per charge on pure electric, and a small motor to charge the >> battery and extend the range to ~ 300 miles. The 40 miles is more >> than enough for most people. Of course, we'll have to see how it >> actually performs once released, but it's a nice looking car, and the >> pricetag will be affordable. > > EXCEPT that most people are not going to be replacing their current gas > vehicles for an electric car. Nor will there be electric light trucks or > SUVs. Hybrid SUV's do not take the place of the workhorse SUVs. > You won't be towing anything with one of them. Most people CAN. Most people do not use SUV's for towing anyhow. And you don't need to have one thing that works for everyone. You can still have trucks run on gas, or whatever, while you also have daily commuters running full electric, hybrid, or whatever. >> >> Tesla is working on releasing the model S, a 4-door that does a 45 >> minute charge for a 300 mile trip. The price is 50 Grand after the >> Federal tax credit, and the car is good looking, fast and efficient. > > except that recharging infrastructure is not in place yet. 110V Outlets are everywhere. Believe it or not, I even have a few in my house. Heck, I even have a couple 220V's. >> >>>>For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best >>>>energy density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are not >>>>mentioning that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they >>>>degrade,and also need WATER to keep them clean. >>> >>> Nuclear reactors only have a 30-50 year life and they are a lot >>> bigger problem to dispose of. They also require water to cool them. >> >> So what? Water is fine. And nuclear waste is much smaller than it >> used to be (ie: efficiency is growing). The disposal of said waste >> CAN be done in a clean, efficient manner. It is cleaner than the >> exhaust that is thrown up by coal plants... >> >> > > If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can the US. > > And one hailstorm or heavy storm destroys your solar panels. > Absolutely! -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-08, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
> > > Jim Yanik wrote: >> >> If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can the US. >> > > > You bet! > > And, the French model is probably the best volume/record wise and a > Westinghouse design at that. > > If we could muster the courage to build 100 plants evenly distributed in > the US, a major dent in foreign oil imports could be affected. It won't > be long before plug in electric cars for urban areas will become viable. > > But I'm sure all we'll hear is more song 'n dance smoke 'n mirrors from > Washington. When you get to be my age, the same ol' tune just starts to > git a little more boring... It's not even so much from Washington, though. It's the population. Everyone wants cleaner better power sources, but noone wants them built near them. Not in My Back Yard... At some point, we have to make tough decisions and do things that aren't as palatable as we'd like. Nuclear power is safer and cleaner than most other forms right now, but there's always that fear of a meltdown in the general population. -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On 2009-04-07, Clive <Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrngtlm6p.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local>, Joe ><joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> writes >>I always found the Land Rover to be ugly as hell and overpriced. If I >>wanted something for off-road, I'd probably pick up a used Jeep... I >>only say used because who knows if the new company will maintain >>quality (which has already deteriorated some)... > I'll say it has, it's the most unreliable car on British roads according > to Motoring Which? Not surprising. The old Jeeps, from before Chrysler took over, were great vehicles. Chrysler amazes me. They are all about style over substance. IMO, Chrysler makes some of the best looking cars on the road. It's a shame that they are unreliable pieces of ... -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:C0UCl.107094$4m1.28282@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Jim Yanik wrote: >> >> If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can >> the US. >> > > > You bet! > > And, the French model is probably the best volume/record wise and a > Westinghouse design at that. > > If we could muster the courage to build 100 plants evenly distributed > in the US, a major dent in foreign oil imports could be affected. It > won't be long before plug in electric cars for urban areas will become > viable. > > But I'm sure all we'll hear is more song 'n dance smoke 'n mirrors > from Washington. When you get to be my age, the same ol' tune just > starts to git a little more boring... > > JT > IMO,Obama doesn't want the US to have plentiful,cheap energy; he blocks nuclear by hindering safe storage of waste at Yucca Mtn repository,he wants carbon taxes,killing coal-fired electricity(50% of US electric),and solar and wind will not make up the difference. The Dems block production of domestic oil fields,block refinery expansion and new refineries;raising the cost of vehicle fuels. Thus driving out the automobile. Looking at the BIG picture,I see that Obama is trying to weaken and destroy America.He's crippling us in energy,seriously weakening our military,ruining our economy,going soft on terrorism,looking weak to our enemies.All his policies work towards MORE unemployment. It all fits in with what he said and wrote before he was elected to President,and with his background as a foreign-raised child. Obama is really an America-hater,just like Rev.Wright. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrngto75i.b4h.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > On 2009-04-08, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote: >> >> >> Jim Yanik wrote: >>> >>> If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can >>> the US. >>> >> >> >> You bet! >> >> And, the French model is probably the best volume/record wise and a >> Westinghouse design at that. >> >> If we could muster the courage to build 100 plants evenly distributed >> in the US, a major dent in foreign oil imports could be affected. It >> won't be long before plug in electric cars for urban areas will >> become viable. >> >> But I'm sure all we'll hear is more song 'n dance smoke 'n mirrors >> from Washington. When you get to be my age, the same ol' tune just >> starts to git a little more boring... > > It's not even so much from Washington, though. It's the population. > Everyone wants cleaner better power sources, but noone wants them > built near them. Not in My Back Yard... > > At some point, we have to make tough decisions and do things that > aren't as palatable as we'd like. Nuclear power is safer and cleaner > than most other forms right now, but there's always that fear of a > meltdown in the general population. > Then educate the public. Nuclear power would also mean more good paying jobs. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in
news:slrngto6ue.b4h.joe@barada.griffincs.local: > On 2009-04-07, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> Joe <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote in >> news:slrngtllg9.3cu.joe@barada.griffincs.local: >> >>> On 2009-04-06, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>> On 4 Apr 2009 21:20:00 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >>>> >>>>>We're not going to replace fossil fuels for autos;the alternatives >>>>>simply don't have the same energy density of petro fuels.We need to >>>>>open up our DOMESTIC oil production and refining,screw the >>>>>environuts. >>>> >>>> Maxing out domestic oil wouldn't even keep up with demand if it >>>> increased at the pace of the last few decades. And it is a finite >>>> resource - the faster we use it, the sooner it runs out. >> >> Oil is NOT a "finite resource";we continue to discover new fields. >> And I agree that we need to reduce oil consumption,and we achieve >> that by going to smaller,lighter vehicles with better mileage. >> Reserve lt.trucks and SUVs for where they are truly necessary. > > That wasn't me, but I'll disagree. New discoveries or not, Oil is not > being produced. Or, if it is, not nearly at the rate we are using it. Only because the Dems block domestic production and refinery expansion. Look how the price of oil shot up so high and then drastically dropped. (IMO,-somebody- was manipulating the market,for political reasons.) > > >> >>>> >>>> The economics of a pure electric vehicle pretty much limits it to >>>> the golf-cart city cars for the foreseeable future. No one I know >>>> is going to pay the cost for a highway capable electric car with a >>>> range of 100 miles between charges. (Although I did see a Tesla on >>>> the expressway the other day.) Hybrids are practical now and will >>>> only become more so as the price of oil increases. >>>> >>> >>> I'll disagree with this. While I am no huge fan of Chevy these >>> days, the Volt has a very good chance of being successful. >>> >>> 40 Miles per charge on pure electric, and a small motor to charge >>> the battery and extend the range to ~ 300 miles. The 40 miles is >>> more than enough for most people. Of course, we'll have to see how >>> it actually performs once released, but it's a nice looking car, and >>> the pricetag will be affordable. >> >> EXCEPT that most people are not going to be replacing their current >> gas vehicles for an electric car. Nor will there be electric light >> trucks or SUVs. Hybrid SUV's do not take the place of the workhorse >> SUVs. You won't be towing anything with one of them. > > Most people CAN. Most people do not use SUV's for towing anyhow. And > you don't need to have one thing that works for everyone. You can > still have trucks run on gas, or whatever, while you also have daily > commuters running full electric, hybrid, or whatever. Most people don't buy one vehicle for city use and another for interstate driving. Their one car has to do both. and many people cannot afford to buy a new car,hybrid or whatever. > >>> >>> Tesla is working on releasing the model S, a 4-door that does a 45 >>> minute charge for a 300 mile trip. The price is 50 Grand after the >>> Federal tax credit, and the car is good looking, fast and efficient. >> >> except that recharging infrastructure is not in place yet. > > 110V Outlets are everywhere. Believe it or not, I even have a few in > my house. Heck, I even have a couple 220V's. yeah,like some OTHER property owner is going to foot the bills for charging lots of other peoples vehicles.We don't even have the extra electric capacity to power millions of new electric vehicles. > >>> >>>>>For fixed electric power generation,nuclear is the way to go;Best >>>>>energy density of all,reliable,clean. I note solar proponents are >>>>>not mentioning that solar panels only have a 30 yr life before they >>>>>degrade,and also need WATER to keep them clean. >>>> >>>> Nuclear reactors only have a 30-50 year life and they are a lot >>>> bigger problem to dispose of. They also require water to cool >>>> them. >>> >>> So what? Water is fine. >>> And nuclear waste is much smaller than it >>> used to be (ie: efficiency is growing). The disposal of said waste >>> CAN be done in a clean, efficient manner. It is cleaner than the >>> exhaust that is thrown up by coal plants... >>> >>> >> >> If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can >> the US. >> >> And one hailstorm or heavy storm destroys your solar panels. >> > > Absolutely! > -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in > news:C0UCl.107094$4m1.28282@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > >> >> Jim Yanik wrote: >>> If Japan and France can do nuclear power cleanly and safely,so can >>> the US. >>> >> >> You bet! >> >> And, the French model is probably the best volume/record wise and a >> Westinghouse design at that. >> >> If we could muster the courage to build 100 plants evenly distributed >> in the US, a major dent in foreign oil imports could be affected. It >> won't be long before plug in electric cars for urban areas will become >> viable. >> >> But I'm sure all we'll hear is more song 'n dance smoke 'n mirrors >> from Washington. When you get to be my age, the same ol' tune just >> starts to git a little more boring... >> >> JT >> > > IMO,Obama doesn't want the US to have plentiful,cheap energy; > he blocks nuclear by hindering safe storage of waste at Yucca Mtn dude, "storage" is the dumbest ing idiot disaster yet proposed for this planet. it is dangerous, ill-conceived, and incredibly ignorant of reality. very briefly,, "storage" means we have fuel rods, [among other things] in a highly reactive and physically unstable condition, in a ing water tank. i'm not an expert on this stuff, but i do know that irradiated metals get extremely brittle and because of atomic displacements, suffer a physical decomposition condition similar to extreme hydrogen cracking. so, left long enough, your rod falls apart, and all your fissile material pellets drop to the bottom of the tank. now, do you know what happens when you get this happen on a large scale and you let enough kilos of pellets accumulate close together? ask the russians, they know. they lost a mountain in siberia "experimenting" with this. it's called "critical mass" and something does "BOOM". what we should do, and what the japanese, russians and french do, is reprocess. that means you take all that apart, you melt and separate all the individual elements, you re-use the stuff you want, and the you don't want, you oxidize and melt into glass [like hockey pucks] with dilution sufficient that no matter what you do, you cannot "accidentally" or neglectfully achieve critical. so even if society melts down and 10,000 years from now, some idiot starts pulling those things out of a repository somewhere, all they'll manage to achieve is a lump on someone elses helmet, not vaporization of yucca mountain and half of las vegas. or anywhere else for that matter. usa + "storage" = utter ing retardation > repository,he wants carbon taxes,killing coal-fired electricity(50% of US > electric),and solar and wind will not make up the difference. > The Dems block production of domestic oil fields,block refinery expansion > and new refineries;raising the cost of vehicle fuels. > Thus driving out the automobile. > > > Looking at the BIG picture,I see that Obama is trying to weaken and destroy > America.He's crippling us in energy,seriously weakening our > military,ruining our economy,going soft on terrorism,looking weak to our > enemies.All his policies work towards MORE unemployment. > > It all fits in with what he said and wrote before he was elected to > President,and with his background as a foreign-raised child. > Obama is really an America-hater,just like Rev.Wright. > dude, read what i just wrote and focus on the facts - this bullshit is way beyond ignorance and xenophobia. focus your, er, "energy" on getting your idiot representatives to do the right thing - reprocess. write them today. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands