Your President

Better than Clinton. I'm happy. There are some issues I disagree with, but overall I'm content.

The space shield and space military department was inevitable. Land, Sea, and Air have been fought over, and there is no reason to believe that space will be any different.

<font color=red>They're out there, waiting, watching, listening. Be afraid! The cookies are coming!</font color=red>

I have to agree with you there. I mean ten minutes as president and he's already trying to start wars with Sadam just like his dad. All I can say is I didn't vote for 'Dubwya' and the sooner he's out of office, the better.

Say all the bad stuff against Clinton that you want to, but you have to admit that despite all else, he was a good foriegn PR man.

Usually I'm concerned about presidential assassinations because the thought of the vice presidents being in office is even scarier than the thought of the president being in office. This time though, hell, I'd buy the bullets.

-Sanity is the lifeblood of the weak. Only <font color=red>Chaos</font color=red> gives you true strength.

You all forget so soon what we had to choose from. Gore or Bush. It was like the blind leading the blind.

I have no problems with Bush's foriegn policy, but I do worry about our energy policy. Basically I won't vote for him again unless we adopt one that works.

As far as clinton's foriegn policy: We lost soldiers all around the world due to his decision making. Somalia and Kosovo, Iraq and Bosnia. I don't know what you're talking about, but all foriegn affairs lead by Clinton were failures. Complain all you want about Iraq, but the truce that Iraq signed has been violated and we are doing nothing about it other than sanctioning them and hurting the Iraqi people. Sure we had great relations with China, but at what cost? Nafta was thankfully adopted by Clinton after being set up by Bush at least.

Nonetheless, someone the other day said something that really struck me as interesting. "At least bush is keeping corruption within the country". Bush might have something to do with our rising gas prices, but at least he didn't sell us out to a foriegn country.

I wasn't expecting much from whoever won, so I suppose that's why I'm content. Where was a strong leader when we needed one?

<font color=red>They're out there, waiting, watching, listening. Be afraid! The cookies are coming!</font color=red>

As part of UN and NATO each countries are required to take such actions. The Ground soldiers never actually entered Iraq during the war, but spent all the time in Kuwait, Same in kosovo. The did fight in Bosnia and Somalia. I think the casualty rate was highest in Somalia. I'm not sure though.

I think all the decisions are being made for bush. I dont even think he gets to disagree with his dads former employees.


<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>

I'm kind of torn on that too. I've been saying for a while that the US should be producing our own oil instead of relying on the Middle East to supply it all. So that decision actually made me kind of happy.

At the same time though, I think the US should also be doing more to protect natural lands and the wildlife that lives on them. So that decision pissed me off too.

I think that's a no-win situation really.

And I think I'm going to just absolve myself from talking more about politics because I'm really not in the mood for the flaming that political discussions usually end up in.

-Sanity is the lifeblood of the weak. Only <font color=red>Chaos</font color=red> gives you true strength.

Right on dude!

BTW - that was a really 'pretty' saying, where did you get that from?

<Common Sense is a gift that some of us have returned.>

I got a saying from a poetry. You can find the whole thing <A HREF="http://www.runningdeerslonghouse.com/webdoc12.htm" target="_new">here</A>.

<b>jg38...:</b>
Hydrogen Fuel Cells are excellent but still not widely available. I the UK you can get cars that run on Liquid Petrolium Gas (LPG) and those that run on Liquid Natural Gas (LNG). You can also get Hybrid Engine cars that have an Electic motors as well as the petrol engine.


<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>

I whole heartidly agree with you, especially on banning suv's and trucks unless you can show a need to have them- sports cars too for that matter- see msn.com today for top 10 gas guzzlers- I disagree on the Alaska thing, but other than that I think you're right on. Good luck with finals

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.

You are the reason there's a problem. No offense. There should be truck rentals in every town that you can rent a truck for like 30 bucks a day, like a u-haul. But since I doubt you haul your dirt bike etc. every day- you are personally responsible for everyone having to pay more for gas. And really 30 a day isn't bad- a tank of gas costs that much and it's way less than a car payment. As for your off-roading friends- definitly no. It's fun and all- and coming from a state with nothing but trucks I know, but it's wasteful and ultimately pointless. You say you try to prolong the inevitability of a trash ball world, but unless you have two cars and only use the truck when you need to I have to say that you're wrong on that too. The problem is- most people don't need the horse power. Around here it's just a bunch of frat guys driving daddy's money on mommy's gas card showing off the size of their dicks. Suv owners are even worse. It's a rare day that I actually see one towing anything. I don't think we should be told what to drive either. However, since we have no since of national/global responsibility for our selves then I think it's the only way. Or better still, just make it illegal to make cars that get less than like 35 mpg. Then the problem will just fix its self. If we do still have trucks and suv's they'll be fuel efficient, in which case I have no problem with them. As for those with a real need- ie. need it every day for profession- then they can get a permit for a fee and then be allowed to purchase one. The system would be abused a bit, but it would still fix the gas problem. Every european country and japan does it, why can't we? Are they that much better than us? No, they are just smarter and less obsessed with material flaunting. We need to pull our heads out of the corporations asses and realise that we really don't need all the stuff they say we do. Until then I say everyone who drives to the grocery store in their truck/suv is a brainless corporate automaton who cares for no one but themselves. But I can't be too critical- after all isn't that the american way?

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.

Seems I struck a nerve. Very well. Just because you feel guilty is no reason to get all pissy, reguardless... Allow me to retort- I also enjoy driving. I never said that one shouldn't enjoy it. Fool that you are really didn't read what I said so I will repeat it. Trucks and off road vehicles are fine, IF they get better gas milage. We all know that a small alterations to the exhaust system of a car will if not double at least add another 50% to the mpg a car gets without impeding performance. So why aren't we using them? Well they appeared on the news over a year ago, it was front page stuff but exxon would have none of it, so- they bought the rights to the invention and the guy who thought it up retired on an island and no one has heard of it since. What happened? Exxon, and others, buy the rights to fuel efficient tech. at any price as soon as it comes out. Then they wait until the patend is about to run out (10 years I think) or until they decide it's profitable for them to make money off the invention, which since it invovles saving oil it is not. I don't want all vehicles to be "super-efficient transportation units". I simply want everyone to be responsible. I won't even coment on your "that never even crossed your mind" thing, not worth my time. Trucks are fun and so are suv's. They just need to get better milage and if the govt. made a law that made all auto's have to get at least 28mpg then it would force the companies to use the available technology in order to satisfy the customer desire for big trucks. Did that ever cross YOUR mind? Did you actually READ my last post? Boating and flying take up a lot of fuel, but no where near as much as trucks and suv's every day because not everyone flies or boats. Like I said we are at a shortage of about 2mill barrels a day. If all suv's and pickup trucks improved their gas milage by 2mpg there would be NO shortage.
So- There ought to be a law. People would still get what they want, it would just force car makers and oil companies to get more creative. It's not like it's a law that you, in your infinite pompous "I don't want any more laws" ideal, would have to follow. It's not a law for you. It's a law for companies. It would do nothing but good for us all.

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.

I am well aware of the media's ability to over state. This invention was all over the place though, in magazines, Time, newspapers etc. Basically how it worked is like this. When gas explodes in the engine a good deal of energy is expelled some of which is used to move the car. The rest is dissapated through the engine and exhaust. Kinda like a bullet, some force goes into the bullet to make it move the rest goes through the gun and whoever shoots the gun. Well much like an automatic uses some of that force of the bullet to reload the next bullet the new exhaust system simply puts more of the force to use, thereby decreasing the amount of gas needed to produce the desired effect. It's not a matter of conspiricy. It's a matter of money. Car companies can't impliment this yet or they probobly would. But they don't own the invention. Exxon does. And as much as exxon would make with all the cars in the US produced with better combustion systems, they would still make far more in the daily sale of gasoline if they just hold on to the invention. Companies are working all the time to invent these things first, but if some yokel thinks it up and produces it and then oil companies buy the rights, not only can the car companies not use it, but they can't use anything based on that technology either. So they need a totally new idea. They have to think of new ideas based on what they are allowed by law to do, and that's why it's such a challenge for them. They work hard at it, but the best technology enchancements on the internal combustion engine are owned. As soon as it becomes more profitable for exxon to sell their technology then it is for them to sell more oil they will. No conspiracy, just money. EPA can't force someone to release a patend, and while they can continue to increase fuel efficiency standards in hope that they will release it, they can't, without congressional approval, raise the standards so high that there will be no other choice and a republican govt. isn't gonna go for that. No conspiracy to keep it this way, it's a very obvious and deliberate plan to keep it this way because this is what makes money. Exxon decides to root for the environment their sales drop 25% their stock goes into the ground and every oil company in the country will cry foul and try to keep it down as long as possible. It makes since for them, we're the ones who are screwed.

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.

I hear you. In Texas the helmet laws no longer exist for that very reason. Sorry if I offended you and I could add to my argument saying that if every truck user carpooled every day they weren't hauling something around the problem would also go away. I just know that everyone wants to be the one that doesn't have to conserve, and most people are not as responsible as you if it in any way inconvienences them. Of that I am no exception. Luckily for the environment I have a standard saturn with a single overhead cam engine.

My Jesus is whiter than your Jesus.

Let me start of by saying that most of you posts are intelligent and logical. But your conspiracy theory on keeping cars inefficient is just insane.

1st of all the device you described attached to the exhaust is called a “turbo” or turbo charger. It reclaims some of the energy form the exhaust and uses it to force more air into the engine thus creating more power enabling car makers to use smaller engines (smaller = better gas mileage) and still produce acceptable power so consumers will buy the car. But it dose cost more to manufacture and maintain. Car makers are wringing every last drop of power they can form combustion engines right now! The Only way to gain substantial economy if through hi-bred technology (like the Honda Insight) or from radically lighter cars.
There is also other engine designs but they either cost too much or don’t provide the instant “start and go” people take for granted in today’s cars. I repeat. There is no conspiracy! There is no conspiracy! There is no conspiracy! I mean it would be every carmakers wet dream to create a car that got 70 MPG with no loss of power. It’s just not possible. There are vehicles that do get 70MPG, There called scooters! You want to drive one to work every day when it’s 115 in rush hour. You want you wife to commute to work next to buses and navigators. Of course not! And neither do millions of other people. People want AC, Heat, tons of power and the ability to drive over a VW without a scratch. That’s why SUVs are selling so well. People don’t care they get 10 MPG. If they can afford a 45,000+ car they sure as hell can afford the gas.

Do you know why car makers make the cars that they do? Because that’s what people want to drive. If most people wanted to drive little economy cars, that’s what would be produced. It’s not the auto manufactures fault we have all these gas hogs out on the roads. There just trying to stay in business and if ford didn’t make one somebody else would and reap the profit.

The only people who want SUVs and 900 HP sport cars to be illegal are the people who can’t afford them. Like some one else said. There are too many laws all ready.

Ok now lets talk about oil prices. I don’t like paying almost 2 bucks a gallon for gas and right now I have no choice. I have to go to the job site with a truck full of tools and a scooter ain’t going to cut it. I am going to get a new job in the future where I can ride my motorcycle to work which will save me lots of gas money but right now it’s $80 a week for gas. Bush want’s to drill in Alaska for more oil. Fine with me. I was never planing to visit. Lets strip mine it while were at it. I want my gas prices low now. You and I will be long dead before the environment is totally wrecked. The fact it that even if the US cleaned up it’s act lots of countries would not and until global warming (or whatever) is staring the world in the face nobody is going to change a thing.

Don’t get me wrong. I am for the environment and wish the world population was stay right where it is or go down. I would like to see the whole world go to clean energy (solar & nuclear) and the rest fo the world turned into parks but it ain’t guna happen. Not anytime soon that is.




<font color=green>I may go to <font color=red>hell</font color=red> but at least I won't get lonely</font color=green>

I can't remember the numbers, but there was a study released a couple of months ago that showed that the earth's temperature had increased way more than they thought. Their current predictions were something in the neighborhood of a 8 degree increase over the next 100 years as well. Basically we're screwed...or those living on the coast at least. I believe the current population of coastl cities is in the hundreds of millions. It's amazing what a few degrees will do, but our great grand children will have to pay for our selfishness.

<font color=red>They're out there, waiting, watching, listening. Be afraid! The cookies are coming!</font color=red>

Check this out. <A HREF="http://www.autoweb.com.au/start_120/showall_/id_VWN/doc_vwg9706121/article.html" target="_new">A standard Volkswagen polo doing 85.6 mpg.</A>

Tax the fuel guzzlers. Leave low tax on economy cars. Give exemptions to houliers, Tow truck companies etc.

I don't think thats true. Like, I would like to have a ferrari someday. And I wouldn't mind paying the fuel costs for the car. I figure if I can afford a ferrari, why should I be complaining about these things.

You are extremely short sighted. How can you say that and claim that your for the environment. You seem to forget that the US has some of the worst environmental records. Something needs to be done. Put high taxation on fuel guzzling vehicles. Enforce marshal law for a couple of nights to hold off the riots. Put a few good movies on TV, people will stay home to watch'em . And all will be forgotten.

They also need to put tighter emission regulations on the industries. They have to be forced to manage their waste.

I understand fossil fuel has to be used to an extent, but we are definetly overusing them.


<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>

I agree. 3 sentences after the one you quoted, I said so. Well, actually, we still need it at the moment. But, it's days are numbered (as a pass car engine, that is).

I think turbocharged engines, generally, are slightly more efficient than normally aspirated engines. Meaning, you will get more power with the same amount of fuel.

<font color=blue>I can not be held responsible for anything I say. I am legally insane.</font color=blue>

Yeah, I know how a turbocharger works. And yes, If you have 2 identical engines except 1 has a turbocharger, the turbo engine will burn fuel faster. But, that doesn't mean it is less efficient. The turbo is producing more power.

I think almost every automotive engineer will agree with me that the turbo has a slight advantage in theoretical efficiency. But, there are other factors that limit the turbo's practicality (i.e. cost, reliability, drivabilty,maintenance).

In theory a turbocharged car with the same perfomance as a certain naturally aspirated car, would have a smaller displacement engine and be slightly more fuel efficient. But, it's kinda like comparing apples and oranges, theory and practice are two different animals, <i>insert your cliche here</i>, etc., etc.

<font color=blue>I can not be held responsible for anything I say. I am legally insane.</font color=blue>

I know, they use it as a major earner. First it was supposed to be used to fix up the roads and help fix the public transprt system, now they just use the money all over the place. Its sad, I know.

They can't do the same to Hydrogen fuel cells. They don't have an excuse to do so. LPG tas used to be higher. I cant see it going bakc up anytime soon. I think It will be a good few years before anything like that happens, and by then I'm hoping Hydrogen fuel cells will become widely available.

They're likely to fall back by implementing inner city tolls and and motorway tolls. Innercity tolls I can understand, but motorway tolls don't make any sense to me. Those things were built for lots of cars to be transported, what is the point of putting restrictions on their use.

One more thing is that public transport is getting more and more expensive. A oneday travel card for London Zone 1 (inner london) is £4.10 I think. That is obsurd. It should be cheaper.

mousepotatoe:
I still think Turbo chargers arent the most elegant solution to fuel efficiency. Perhaps it might be ok for the US if you regularly travel on the clear interstates. (are they really clear most of the time or just like that on TV?) for areas with high congestion, normal engines are far better.

anyway, how come were talking about cars and polution, while we should be talking about dubya jr.



<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>

VW golfs and polos are very popular in the uk. I'm sure they're popular in europe aswell. US is a different market. i hear you people dont even look at a car if its engine capacity's less the 3.0 Litres.


<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>

I've got to say that as a Brit, this thread is amazing.

I have a simple question to start: What is the ave. engine size & bhp rating for a US car? In Britain it's a 1.6ltr engine (approx. 98 cubic inches) and about 90-100 bhp.

Now, I appreciate that the US is a LOT bigger and so is much of the travelling, but even for the really long-haul travellers over here (salesmen doing 40K a year), they don't have more than a 2-2.5ltr car even if they're not paying for the petrol. Yes, taxes & duties have contributed to bring this down some, but against that we tend to drive faster here anyway.

In a book called Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy (set mainly in the UK), the lead character (from the US) is amazed that he's being driven at 80mph on the motorway. Well, whilst many people drive slower than that on motorways here, I tend to stick to 85-90, and even then, on a 3-lane motorway, I get overtaken a lot. This may seem like a digress, but my point is that our faster driving sort of cancels out your longer distances, so both countries have roughly equivalent needs. The only other factor I can think of is weight of car and items carried/towed, but I struggle to believe that citizens in the US have needs that are significantly greater than here in the UK. My dad was a carpenter & builder by trade, and carried a sh*t-load of gear in his van, but it was only a 2ltr diesel (as are most vans) and he wasn't suffering for it. Exceptions obviously exist for those who live in mountains, loggers, etc., but that is the minority of the population. Having a big engine in the city is ridiculous whether in the US or the UK. Britain isn't pure as snow - you should see the number of Range Rovers in London - but the difference is massive. By example, my cousin from in the sticks nearish Lexington, Kentucky was laughing himself stupid at the thought of someone having a car with only a 1.4 ltr engine when he came to visit.

The problem is not so much of what fuel to use, but that of control vs. excess. I know the US as a nation like 'bigger, better, faster' everything (as do we all), but the US is always that much more 'bigger, better, faster'. This isn't just limited to cars (although they're a good example), but the average fridge is twice the size of those over here, yet families are the same size. The consumption of power (where as electric, gasoline or whatever) is much higher for the average American than anywhere else on the planet, yet you don't lead different lives from many other countries (Western Europe for example), but there is no incentive to be efficient. Doesn't anyone wonder <i> why </i> you're having blackouts. You haven't suddenly had a population boom, so you're obviously chewing more juice per person. In the UK, if you buy a fridge/freezer or any white good (washing machine, etc.), on the display card they are required to show, as the biggest thing on it, a little table depicting how efficient they are on an A to G scale (A being the best). All the American fridges being sold over here are F or G. Now they may not be the ones you guys use, but as a rule of thumb, the bigger the fridge, the more juice to chill it. (The only reason I know is 'coz I'm looking to buy a fridge at the moment.)

My last comment relates to the 'new technology' bit: About 15 years ago I used to watch a program called Tomorrow's World every week on the TV. This was a science documentary where they look at new technology, breakthroughs, and forthcoming stuff - thrilling for a teenage boy like I was. On one episode, they had 2 Ford Sierras (family sized cars) in the studio side by side, both with the carburettor linked to a tall clear pipe full of fuel above the bonnet (hood) which was gradiated in CCs. The boffin who was the guest said that he had noticed that his car ran a lot smoother in his village when it was misty in the morning, and he realised this was because of the water vapour in the air. Therefore, he devised a device that squirted a small amount of water in with the fuel as it was burnt. He had fitted this thing to one of the cars, and whilst the program ran, they left them both idling. Now whilst they could have cheated (turned off one car, or even not have the pipes connected to the engines at all), I doubt it. By the end of the show, the car with the gizmo had burnt about 30% less fuel. They then said that Texaco had bought the technology and they were looking at ways to introduce such a system into all cars 'soon'. I still haven't seen anything, and I've never heard anything on the subject since.

Sorry if I seem like a Greenpeace type (I'm really not - I even overclock my CPU, and so chew more electric!), but it does seem as though the emphasis is more on curing the symptom rather than the cause.

No offence guys

Dan

Hey man! i'm not from USA.


<font color=red>"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and dispair!"</font color=red>

What do you mean? He left the party because he wants more money for his programs. He's a socialist not a republican. He screwed all his friends for the money. I wonder what his consituents think.

<font color=red>They're out there, waiting, watching, listening. Be afraid! The cookies are coming!</font color=red>

In my city there are some eolic power generators installed in the surroundings, before installing them some studies were carried that showed no impact in the local wild life.

The best way to fight boredom is sleeping

Sure there are cars with engines smaller then 3.0 liters, they are compact cars. Infact, I have one of those evil 3.0 liter turbo engines. It gets about 21-23 miles to the gallon highway and 15-16 mpg city and its 16 years old to boot! Thats about the same mileage that my friend gets out of his 95 3.9 liter dodge dakota truck. But back to compact cars. The cut off for most compact cars is about 2 liters actually. Anything smaller then that usually doesnt run the best with the A/C on and climbing hills.

<b>WARNING:</b> The consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like an A$$HOLE.

Ya, thats why Americans dont drive cars with 1.1-1.4 liter engines, they like the feeling of the seat around you. I test drove a 2001 Toyota Corolla Type S 5 speed with a 1.8 liter engine. It didnt do to bad of a joke on the hills and acceleration. But I took an automatic version of that car out and it comepletely sucked climbing the hill to get onto the interstate. Thats another thing to take notice of. What do most of the 1.1 to 1.4 liter cars have for transmission, automatics or manuals? I would think manual transmissions for engines that small. Over in America its hard to find a manual transmission car, trust me I looked. I wanted a 2001 Nissan Sentra SE or GXE manual, I think of the 20 on the dealer lot one or two were manuals. The simple fact remains that Americans for the majority want auto trans and acceleration(put you back in the seat). To do that they need bigger engines. Not to mention the fact of the pissing contest for who has the fastest, biggest, most powerful car; its America the land of excess!

<b>WARNING:</b> The consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like an A$$HOLE.