macattak1 Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I was wondering my Lake Superior was so high when I was there in June. According to stories over the years it was like 15' down and heading to 20' down. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) A summit in Guadalahara Mexico among leaders of Canada, United States, and Mexico August 9th and 10th will discuss "climate change". I guess that Obama is going to lay down the law regardless of what a large segment of the people think. This is not about controlling the climate, which can't be done. It is about controlling and taking away freedom from the people. The US has the power to adversly affect the economies of Canada and Mexico if they refuse to go along with his push towards Totalitarianism. I just found this. Thought it might add some science and study to the mix. Click on some of the articles. Seems to be very well documented... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/pr...ate_crisis.html Edited August 17, 2009 by DUCKRACER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I just found this. Thought it might add some science and study to the mix. Click on some of the articles. Seems to be very well documented... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/pr...ate_crisis.html hate to rake up some muck, but I believe this was already addressed and if memory serves there was some monied interests that provided the 'science' behind this point of view, but my memory might be getting gone or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 hate to rake up some muck, but I believe this was already addressed and if memory serves there was some monied interests that provided the 'science' behind this point of view, but my memory might be getting gone or something. Are you so naive to thing that the PRO agw so-called scientists are self-funded? At the very least this proves that there is no "consensus" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If the people of the world can be made to believe that there is a serious threat to the planet, this will make it easier to create a global government. This is the whole purpose of the global warming brainwash. I don't want a global government. I don't even want the amount of government that we have now. I want a lot less government. What is it about people that makes them want to become slaves? The whole lot should be dealt with like they did in the old days when they came to town selling their fake snake oil: Tar and feathering and ridden out of town on a rail. Vote all of these left-wing crooks out of office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If the people of the world can be made to believe that there is a serious threat to the planet, this will make it easier to create a global government. This is the whole purpose of the global warming brainwash. I don't want a global government. I don't even want the amount of government that we have now. I want a lot less government. What is it about people that makes them want to become slaves? The whole lot should be dealt with like they did in the old days when they came to town selling their fake snake oil: Tar and feathering and ridden out of town on a rail. Vote all of these left-wing crooks out of office. Yep, I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 If the people of the world can be made to believe that there is a serious threat to the planet, this will make it easier to create a global government. This is the whole purpose of the global warming brainwash. I don't want a global government. I don't even want the amount of government that we have now. I want a lot less government. What is it about people that makes them want to become slaves? The whole lot should be dealt with like they did in the old days when they came to town selling their fake snake oil: Tar and feathering and ridden out of town on a rail. Vote all of these left-wing crooks out of office. I agree, mostly less government is good, but labeling hte lefties as the only guilty ones is a mistake as every administration has grown the government, and most of them the debt, although I don't know about commie Canada TRIM. As for people wanting to be slaves, I don't think that is how they are selling it or it wouldn't sell! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Are you so naive to thing that the PRO agw so-called scientists are self-funded? At the very least this proves that there is no "consensus" i tend to think about things a bit more than average, and there might not be a consensus, but if you ask those whom think about the environment for a living there is more consensus then well heeled and moneyed interests would have you believe. For those that are making money on the status quo and own most of your cable radio channels and what is left of your newspapers, throwing a little money at making it look like there is no consensus makes great business sense, survival of the fittest. The sky might not be falling, it is being held in place by the theory of gravity, but if you blow enough smoke clouds eventually you'll get some of the smoke in your eyes!, or if you pee in the pool enough times you get... well that might not be the most tasteful way to illustrate that man can have an effect on the global environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 New Movie Seeks to Refute Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52543 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 To crushing new Explorers, Focuses and Civics apparently. Would have thought that with all the MMGW they would have made those lst two cars ineligible? Peace and Blessings The Focus and Civic both get over 19 mpg and are not eligible for C4C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I wonder how much of that wasted money was actually 4500 credits? How many cars were sold with that first billion? About 250,000 sold on the 1st billion. Should be around 750,000 by the time C4C is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Cap, Watch this video and I think you will begin to understand the stupidity of the program. In short, the government borrows $4500. Then use it to buy a perfectly serviceable car, no other kind is eligible for Cash for Clunkers. Then crush the car. Keep in mind that they could have sold just as many cars if they hadn't decided to crush the trade ins. A lot of the C4C cars are barely servicable. The Volvo is an exception. No one is killing cars that are worth more than $4,500 as a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Its humid as all heck here in MN. About the first time this year. Yesterday was Horrible. Is not humidity part of the problem too? Maybe a huge dehumidifier like the atmosphere vacuum in Space balls would help us? Peace and Blessings Colonel Sandurz: It's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to blow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 About 250,000 sold on the 1st billion. Should be around 750,000 by the time C4C is done. So where did the rest of the money go? Even putting them all at 4500 would add up to 10% of the money. Dealers got 50 bucks for paperwork. Seems like an expensive program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 A lot of the C4C cars are barely servicable. The Volvo is an exception. No one is killing cars that are worth more than $4,500 as a trade. A lot of the cars would make fine used cars for people who don't have a lot of money. Now since we just take these cars out of the used car market what happens to used car prices since we just artificially shrank the supply? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Australia's Cap and Trade Plans Crash and Burn Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Greenpeace Confesses to Ice Cap Melting Exaggeration More Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 More Pants down, shoes untied, mustard on the cheek, shirt on inside out. Ooooops. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 More didn't hear much science mentioned here, just a clip of "I don't know" was the best quote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 A lot of the C4C cars are barely servicable. The Volvo is an exception. No one is killing cars that are worth more than $4,500 as a trade. I know that you wish that to be the case, but it is simply not true. By definition, the cars have to be roadworthy to qualify. I can post hundreds of video of vehicles just like the Volvo. Go to your dealer and take a look. $4500 in trade in value is at least $6000 (really closer to $9K) in retail value, the price that tax paying consumers have to pay for a car. The economic stimulus is not improved in any way when they crush the cars. If you consider the energy required to recycle the old car, and then to manufacture the new car, it doesn't even make sense in terms of global warming. This is a perfect triumph of what "feels good" over science, the environment, or any form of common sense. To defend the destruction of the cars is just pure "toe the line" party obedient blather. Our government is not so rich that it should be in the business of buying and throwing away cars. This program just reveals how incredibly stupid our representatives truly are. When do we start buying houses and burning them down to stimulate the housing industry? Imagine how many fire fighters would be needed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I know that you wish that to be the case, but it is simply not true. By definition, the cars have to be roadworthy to qualify. I can post hundreds of video of vehicles just like the Volvo. Go to your dealer and take a look. $4500 in trade in value is at least $6000 (really closer to $9K) in retail value, the price that tax paying consumers have to pay for a car. The economic stimulus is not improved in any way when they crush the cars. If you consider the energy required to recycle the old car, and then to manufacture the new car, it doesn't even make sense in terms of global warming. This is a perfect triumph of what "feels good" over science, the environment, or any form of common sense. To defend the destruction of the cars is just pure "toe the line" party obedient blather. Our government is not so rich that it should be in the business of buying and throwing away cars. This program just reveals how incredibly stupid our representatives truly are. When do we start buying houses and burning them down to stimulate the housing industry? Imagine how many fire fighters would be needed? That pretty much sums it up there. Who would have thought we would throw good money after actual junk! We are at Ludacrous speed. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I know that you wish that to be the case, but it is simply not true. By definition, the cars have to be roadworthy to qualify. I can post hundreds of video of vehicles just like the Volvo. Go to your dealer and take a look. $4500 in trade in value is at least $6000 (really closer to $9K) in retail value, the price that tax paying consumers have to pay for a car. The economic stimulus is not improved in any way when they crush the cars. If you consider the energy required to recycle the old car, and then to manufacture the new car, it doesn't even make sense in terms of global warming. This is a perfect triumph of what "feels good" over science, the environment, or any form of common sense. To defend the destruction of the cars is just pure "toe the line" party obedient blather. Our government is not so rich that it should be in the business of buying and throwing away cars. This program just reveals how incredibly stupid our representatives truly are. When do we start buying houses and burning them down to stimulate the housing industry? Imagine how many fire fighters would be needed? I wish I had said that. The last part really puts everything into a nutshell. The question is why does the government want to collapse our civilization? Do they want to replace it with one of Totalitarian government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I wish I had said that. The last part really puts everything into a nutshell. The question is why does the government want to collapse our civilization? Do they want to replace it with one of Totalitarian government? Why do you ask?(your government) to keep you in line! that or there's room 101 for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rc38 Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 So where did the rest of the money go? Even putting them all at 4500 would add up to 10% of the money. Dealers got 50 bucks for paperwork. Seems like an expensive program. The DOT created three new offices and hired 80 employees for the clash for clunkers program. Cost estimates were around $8000.00 per vehicle transaction. The latest estimates out now,say over $10,000.00 per vehicle transaction. We all know that won't be the final number,and i'm sure we will never hear the final tally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 The DOT created three new offices and hired 80 employees for the clash for clunkers program. So now that the program is over, what is the DOT doing with the offices and the 80 people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.