View Full Version : OT: Some here said cannot be done! Supercharge + Turbo
emw525E34
11-10-2005, 08:32 AM
Here it is:
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103048
New Euro Golf!. Just look at that fat torque!.
:p
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 08:50 AM
Here it is:
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103048
New Euro Golf!. Just look at that fat torque!.
:p"Eaton officials said the system will initially appear on cars in Europe where it is expected to compete with turbodiesel engines. The system also could be fitted to diesels, but its future in the North American market could depend on fuel prices and demands for bigger engines. “In the U.S., displacement is still king,” said one Eaton exec."
Yeah, why have economical and efficient engines, when you can have large fuel guzzling V8s. Yeeeeeeeha, go Georgie boy!
Jon K
11-10-2005, 10:11 AM
"Eaton officials said the system will initially appear on cars in Europe where it is expected to compete with turbodiesel engines. The system also could be fitted to diesels, but its future in the North American market could depend on fuel prices and demands for bigger engines. “In the U.S., displacement is still king,” said one Eaton exec."
Yeah, why have economical and efficient engines, when you can have large fuel guzzling V8s. Yeeeeeeeha, go Georgie boy!
George bush mandates large engines in the US. Now i've heard everything.
SavSpeed has a super/turbo system for bmw.
Numerous offerings are available for the Mini S for a turbo ontop of the supercharger.
wasnt bush on the grassy knoll, too? i think he popped jfk
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 10:50 AM
George bush mandates large engines in the US. Now i've heard everything. No, it's the Bush-alike redneck mentality that WANTS larger engines. Don't forget, Bush was elected TWICE by more than a half of voters in the US. I'm not saying ALL americans think that way - people on this forum are usually completely different than the american stereotype. The problem is in that other half of the US population, that don't even know what internet is, and that sees a leader in that moronic Deliverance-boy.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but the fact is - US spends the largest quantities of oil in the world, and it has less than 300 million! If chinese people were to spend that much oil "per capita" the oil reserves would be long gone.
heh. not trying to start a flame war.. "moronic deliverance-boy?" dont know what that that is except asking for it.
No, it's the Bush-alike redneck mentality that WANTS larger engines. Don't forget, Bush was elected TWICE by more than a half of voters in the US. I'm not saying ALL americans think that way - people on this forum are usually completely different than the american stereotype. The problem is in that other half of the US population, that don't even know what internet is, and that sees a leader in that moronic Deliverance-boy.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but the fact is - US spends the largest quantities of oil in the world, and it has less than 300 million! If chinese people were to spend that much oil "per capita" the oil reserves would be long gone.
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 11:29 AM
heh. not trying to start a flame war.. "moronic deliverance-boy?" dont know what that that is except asking for it.
I was hoping my fellow forum members were open minded and liberal :)
some of us are open minded and conservative, and thats not an oxymoron. and we prefer to discuss issues, not insults.
Jon K
11-10-2005, 11:54 AM
No, it's the Bush-alike redneck mentality that WANTS larger engines. Don't forget, Bush was elected TWICE by more than a half of voters in the US. I'm not saying ALL americans think that way - people on this forum are usually completely different than the american stereotype. The problem is in that other half of the US population, that don't even know what internet is, and that sees a leader in that moronic Deliverance-boy.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but the fact is - US spends the largest quantities of oil in the world, and it has less than 300 million! If chinese people were to spend that much oil "per capita" the oil reserves would be long gone.
Bush-alike redneck mentality? The largest portion of the US driving large displacement vehicles are women in $50,000+ SUVs such as V10 Excursions. I am not sure where "redneck" and "$65,000 car" cross paths. I don't want to crash your party, but the majority that voted for Bush, TWICE, don't live in the parts of the country that don't have internet...
As per the oil - it has nothing to do with choice. Chinese people don't simply wake up consistantly each day of the year saying "i am going to ride a bike instead of drive a car." No, the reason they don't drive cars is because the government makes it economically infeasible for 99% of the population.
Jay 535i
11-10-2005, 12:47 PM
As per the oil - it has nothing to do with choice. Chinese people don't simply wake up consistantly each day of the year saying "i am going to ride a bike instead of drive a car." No, the reason they don't drive cars is because the government makes it economically infeasible for 99% of the population.
That is changing rapidly. By 2020 China will be the world's largest car market. It is already VW's largest market.
Jon K
11-10-2005, 01:03 PM
That is changing rapidly. By 2020 China will be the world's largest car market. It is already VW's largest market.
Based purely on volume. If you looked at the cost of a VW in China in American dollars versus the cost of one in America, you'd see its MUCH more expensive in the Asian countries to own a vehicle. Not to mention, simply have "cars" over there still doesn't help the fact that the government taxes vehicles over 1.8 or 2.0L displacement. The majority of civilian vehicles have less than 1.8L of displacement.... and again, it's not that the people don't enjoy torque, they cannot afford it! So essentially what the original poster is trying to say, is that instead of having freedom of picking any car we want and having (relatively) similar taxation based on the vehicles, it'd be better should Bush impose taxation on high displacment cars. Let's not stop there, but let's also tax the HELL out of cars older than 6 years, because they're proven to be emission-inefficient. So, goodbye E34s, goodbye pickup trucks, goodbye freedom. Hello, more criticism of George Bush.
its rough being leader of the free world.
Jay 535i
11-10-2005, 01:27 PM
Based purely on volume. If you looked at the cost of a VW in China in American dollars versus the cost of one in America, you'd see its MUCH more expensive in the Asian countries to own a vehicle. Not to mention, simply have "cars" over there still doesn't help the fact that the government taxes vehicles over 1.8 or 2.0L displacement. The majority of civilian vehicles have less than 1.8L of displacement.... and again, it's not that the people don't enjoy torque, they cannot afford it! So essentially what the original poster is trying to say, is that instead of having freedom of picking any car we want and having (relatively) similar taxation based on the vehicles, it'd be better should Bush impose taxation on high displacment cars. Let's not stop there, but let's also tax the HELL out of cars older than 6 years, because they're proven to be emission-inefficient. So, goodbye E34s, goodbye pickup trucks, goodbye freedom. Hello, more criticism of George Bush.
Yes, I meant on a volume basis only. As for consumption of resources, I dunno. Do 1,000,000,000 Chinese people driving 1.2 litre Golfs do more or less damage than 300,000,000 Americans driving 5-litre Explorers? I honestly don't know.
FWIW, most of what you say is also applicable throughout Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, the tax on a luxury vehicle is nearly 100%. And fuel there already costs triple what it does in the US.
I've been saying for years that the solution is obvious. Don't tax high-displacement engines. Don't tax old cars. Don't tax SUVs. INCREASE THE TAX ON FUEL!
Taxing the fuel rather than the vehicles is the only fair way to charge people according to how much resource they actually use and how much pollution they actually create. Fuel in the US is waaay too cheap. Sorry, but it is. I don't think Ford Explorers ought to be taxed or outlawed, but the fuel ought to be expensive enough to make them less sensible for the average consumer. You should, indeed, have the freedom to choose any car you like, but you should also pay for your choice to guzzle fuel and pollute the atmosphere. Increasing fuel tax is so plainly, bloody obviously the solution. The only reason it isn't discussed is because suggesting more tax is a career-ender for an American politician. Blame McCarthyites for that (tax = communism = godlessness = bad). Nevermind that burning fossil fuels does do damage which can only be undone/reduced with money. Americans like to think it's not their problem.
This is simple economics 101. If you want the public to use less of something (fuel), raise the price. Simple. Too bad that 51% of Americans feel that any kind of tax is an infringement on their god-given right to do whatever the hell they want at the expense of their neighbors and their planet.
Before someone mentions it, I'd be amenable to some sort of fuel tax rebate for commercial use (e.g. truckers), to maintain the cost of our goods that travel by ground.
Also, before someone mentions it, I don't mean to sound anti-American. I love America, but I really don't understand their aversion to taxes. They are 50 years behind the rest of the Western world, which realized long ago that high taxes are a neccesity for a functional society, and they're well worth it. A simple international comparison of education levels, literacy levels, healthcare accessibility, environmental protection and standard of living will bear that out. Through no fault of their own, Americans have been largely conditioned to reject the notion of taxation due to 50 years of propaganda that suggests taxation and freedom are at odds with one another. That just isn't so. I'd argue that, in Canada, my taxes buy me more freedom than most Americans enjoy (that is, freedom to go to a good school, freedom to have a good job, freedom to get medical care when I need it without having to sell my house, freedom to support myself if I get injured and become unable to work, freedom from violence, and on and on and on...).
Jay 535i
11-10-2005, 01:28 PM
its rough being leader of the free world.
You mean Tony Blair? ;)
the british empire had its day. but its nice of blair to join the leaders and stand for wht he believes, not neccessarily whatll get him reelected. we need more politicians with a spine..
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 02:52 PM
Bush-alike redneck mentality? The largest portion of the US driving large displacement vehicles are women in $50,000+ SUVs such as V10 Excursions. I am not sure where "redneck" and "$65,000 car" cross paths. I don't want to crash your party, but the majority that voted for Bush, TWICE, don't live in the parts of the country that don't have internet...
OK, let's say you convinced me - but how is it possible that he got elected AGAIN, after almost ruining the US economy? Bill Clinton left a large surplus in the federal reserves treasury, and Georgie-boy not only spent it, but made a deficit! I'm not able to grasp the mental state of people who strive to make theit own lives harder (and more expensive).
As per the oil - it has nothing to do with choice. Chinese people don't simply wake up consistantly each day of the year saying "i am going to ride a bike instead of drive a car." No, the reason they don't drive cars is because the government makes it economically infeasible for 99% of the population.
Maybe the problem is in the government and it's ecological unawareness. Here you cannot even import a car that's older than 7 years, and leaded fuel is VERY hard to find so people do not have the choice but to switch to newer, smaller and more economical cars with catalythic converters.
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 02:56 PM
some of us are open minded and conservative, and thats not an oxymoron. and we prefer to discuss issues, not insults.
OK, so maybe I am a bit frustrated because a guy like Bush is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. It makes me a bit nervous. I simply don't think he's the right guy for the job. From my point of view, when he stepped in, everything went downhill - globally.
I'd argue that, in Canada, my taxes buy me more freedom than most Americans enjoy (that is, freedom to go to a good school, freedom to have a good job, freedom to get medical care when I need it without having to sell my house, freedom to support myself if I get injured and become unable to work, freedom from violence, and on and on and on...).
Your taxes also pay for your school if you go into trades and dont use it. you pay twice for your health care if you dont want to wait in line and go to a private practice, (i believe this is true in Canada if your system works like it does in the european contries i have experience with). you are free to support yourself if you cant work? is that what you call social security? thats others supporting you. and...freedom from violence? wtf?
Im not sure what you mean by more taxes=more freedom. i understand the opposite isnt always true, but being able to choose yourself where your money goes is more often than not considered more freedom.
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 03:03 PM
Based purely on volume. If you looked at the cost of a VW in China in American dollars versus the cost of one in America, you'd see its MUCH more expensive in the Asian countries to own a vehicle. Not to mention, simply have "cars" over there still doesn't help the fact that the government taxes vehicles over 1.8 or 2.0L displacement. The majority of civilian vehicles have less than 1.8L of displacement.... and again, it's not that the people don't enjoy torque, they cannot afford it! So essentially what the original poster is trying to say, is that instead of having freedom of picking any car we want and having (relatively) similar taxation based on the vehicles, it'd be better should Bush impose taxation on high displacment cars. Let's not stop there, but let's also tax the HELL out of cars older than 6 years, because they're proven to be emission-inefficient. So, goodbye E34s, goodbye pickup trucks, goodbye freedom. Hello, more criticism of George Bush.
That's how it's done in Europe. There's a good thing to it - there are no huge holes in the ozone layer over Europe. At least not for the time being.
What the original poster wanted to say is - if you don't FORCE the car manufacturers to make more efficient, less polluting cars - they WON'T do it. From their point of view, they couldn't care less about efficiency or ecology as long as it sells. Do you really think they would invest in efficiency development if it weren't for the emissions laws? I think not.
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 03:09 PM
its rough being leader of the free world.
Leader of the free world? US is far from free - look at all the drastic security measures, all the invasions of privacy that the government is making legal, crime rate, etc. There was a time I thought it would be nice to live in the US.
each person has their own opinion, and the opinion of the majority of americans at election time was that bush was the right man for the job. i do believe that people are always nervous of someone yielding as much power as the pres of the us.
throughout history, leaders have had to make unpopular decisions to make progress. america didnt want to join WWII and didnt until we were forced to. and even after pearl harbor there wasnt 100% support for joining. but where would the world be if we hadnt been forced to step in.
I think the reason there is so much outcry today over any military action is because we can see how nasty war is, as it happens. live tv pictures say a million more words than a 2week old letter from a soldier who doesnt want the family to worry. But no matter how nasty, war is sometimes neccessary to stop evil in the world.
Leader of the free world? US is far from free - look at all the drastic security measures, all the invasions of privacy that the government is making legal, crime rate, etc. There was a time I thought it would be nice to live in the US.
most of these drastic security measures are already in place everywhere else, and the invasions of privacy are into info that european governments have in database on their citizens.
americans have always been cautious over the power the govt wields and that is why the outcry you hear is so loud.
Not that i want to be more like europe, by any means, I am just as paranoid about increse in govt powers as the next guy, but by comparison, america is more free country by far.
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 03:19 PM
Yes, I meant on a volume basis only. As for consumption of resources, I dunno. Do 1,000,000,000 Chinese people driving 1.2 litre Golfs do more or less damage than 300,000,000 Americans driving 5-litre Explorers? I honestly don't know.
FWIW, most of what you say is also applicable throughout Europe. In the Netherlands, for example, the tax on a luxury vehicle is nearly 100%. And fuel there already costs triple what it does in the US.
I've been saying for years that the solution is obvious. Don't tax high-displacement engines. Don't tax old cars. Don't tax SUVs. INCREASE THE TAX ON FUEL!
Taxing the fuel rather than the vehicles is the only fair way to charge people according to how much resource they actually use and how much pollution they actually create. Fuel in the US is waaay too cheap. Sorry, but it is. I don't think Ford Explorers ought to be taxed or outlawed, but the fuel ought to be expensive enough to make them less sensible for the average consumer. You should, indeed, have the freedom to choose any car you like, but you should also pay for your choice to guzzle fuel and pollute the atmosphere. Increasing fuel tax is so plainly, bloody obviously the solution. The only reason it isn't discussed is because suggesting more tax is a career-ender for an American politician. Blame McCarthyites for that (tax = communism = godlessness = bad). Nevermind that burning fossil fuels does do damage which can only be undone/reduced with money. Americans like to think it's not their problem.
This is simple economics 101. If you want the public to use less of something (fuel), raise the price. Simple. Too bad that 51% of Americans feel that any kind of tax is an infringement on their god-given right to do whatever the hell they want at the expense of their neighbors and their planet.
Before someone mentions it, I'd be amenable to some sort of fuel tax rebate for commercial use (e.g. truckers), to maintain the cost of our goods that travel by ground.
Also, before someone mentions it, I don't mean to sound anti-American. I love America, but I really don't understand their aversion to taxes. They are 50 years behind the rest of the Western world, which realized long ago that high taxes are a neccesity for a functional society, and they're well worth it. A simple international comparison of education levels, literacy levels, healthcare accessibility, environmental protection and standard of living will bear that out. Through no fault of their own, Americans have been largely conditioned to reject the notion of taxation due to 50 years of propaganda that suggests taxation and freedom are at odds with one another. That just isn't so. I'd argue that, in Canada, my taxes buy me more freedom than most Americans enjoy (that is, freedom to go to a good school, freedom to have a good job, freedom to get medical care when I need it without having to sell my house, freedom to support myself if I get injured and become unable to work, freedom from violence, and on and on and on...).
WOW! I must admit, I am impressed with your insight in all this stuff! You are a breath of reason in this thread :)
Btw., can I come live in Canada? It sounds like the american dream, but without Bush and all the negative stuff :)
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 03:23 PM
most of these drastic security measures are already in place everywhere else, and the invasions of privacy are into info that european governments have in database on their citizens.
americans have always been cautious over the power the govt wields and that is why the outcry you hear is so loud.
Not that i want to be more like europe, by any means, I am just as paranoid about increse in govt powers as the next guy, but by comparison, america is more free country by far.
I guess a country is as free as it's citizens feel free. Currently, not many americans feel free/safe or satisfied with the ongoing situation.
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 03:32 PM
each person has their own opinion, and the opinion of the majority of americans at election time was that bush was the right man for the job. i do believe that people are always nervous of someone yielding as much power as the pres of the us.
throughout history, leaders have had to make unpopular decisions to make progress. america didnt want to join WWII and didnt until we were forced to. and even after pearl harbor there wasnt 100% support for joining. but where would the world be if we hadnt been forced to step in.
I think the reason there is so much outcry today over any military action is because we can see how nasty war is, as it happens. live tv pictures say a million more words than a 2week old letter from a soldier who doesnt want the family to worry. But no matter how nasty, war is sometimes neccessary to stop evil in the world.
I wasn't nervous when Clinton was the president. Hell, I liked the guy and I'm not even american nor I live there! I felt safer even with an ongoing war in my country - at least there were no terrorist attacks or nuclear threats, and the fuel was almost half the price it is now!
Everyone has to make an unpopular decision sometimes, but Bush had a whole series of unpopular decisions - it's becoming symptomatic.
Quite the contrary. currently, not many people anywhere are complaining about how free they are, and the complainers get the pub. So yes, we have lost some freedom. We have traded it for a little more security, or at least feeling of security, and mainly only in airports. but overall, i believe that the american population is more free to decide their own destiny than the rest of the world. you feel free in your country because you have never known the freedom we have.
I guess a country is as free as it's citizens feel free. Currently, not many americans feel free/safe or satisfied with the ongoing situation.
Jay 535i
11-10-2005, 03:36 PM
Your taxes also pay for your school if you go into trades and dont use it. you pay twice for your health care if you dont want to wait in line and go to a private practice, (i believe this is true in Canada if your system works like it does in the european contries i have experience with). you are free to support yourself if you cant work? is that what you call social security? thats others supporting you. and...freedom from violence? wtf?
Im not sure what you mean by more taxes=more freedom. i understand the opposite isnt always true, but being able to choose yourself where your money goes is more often than not considered more freedom.
You're twisting my words. I'm not a communist. I don't believe every dollar one makes should go to the government. But I don't believe that none of the dollars I make should go to the government either. There is a middle ground, and the US is too far to the right of it.
Canada is certainly not perfect, but there is less violence, less poverty, more accessibility to healthcare and a higher standard of living. Those things, I think, speak for themselves -- and they all cost money.
I wasn't nervous when Clinton was the president. Hell, I liked the guy and I'm not even american nor I live there! I felt safer even with an ongoing war in my country - at least there were no terrorist attacks or nuclear threats, and the fuel was almost half the price it is now!
Everyone has to make an unpopular decision sometimes, but Bush had a whole series of unpopular decisions - it's becoming symptomatic.
If you became worried about a terrorist attack since bush was elected you are late to the party. they have been happening on the world scale since the 60's. Only when america retaliates do you become worried. bush policies did not cause 911. it happened mere months after his inauguration. terrorists attacked during clintons presidency, he simply didnt do anything about it. what you find comforting i find unacceptable.
Jay 535i
11-10-2005, 03:44 PM
Quite the contrary. currently, not many people anywhere are complaining about how free they are, and the complainers get the pub. So yes, we have lost some freedom. We have traded it for a little more security, or at least feeling of security, and mainly only in airports. but overall, i believe that the american population is more free to decide their own destiny than the rest of the world. you feel free in your country because you have never known the freedom we have.
Depends on how you define freedom. Americans are free to drive what they like, think what they like, say what they like, and many other things. Yes, that is freedom of a sort.
But 50,000,000 Americans live in poverty. Are they really free?
Millions of Americans go to schools that are dangerous, dilapidated, ill-funded and downright dysfunctional. Those children will be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. Are they really free?
As we recently saw with Katrina, millions of Americans are the victims of racism and apathy, abandoned by their own goverment. Are they really free?
Every year in America 11,000 people are killed by guns. They certainly aren't free.
Millions of Americans work multiple jobs and still earn less than what the rest of the West calls a 'living wage'. They work their asses off and still don't earn enough to feed their children, who eventually become dysfuctional and violent due to lack of parenting. Are those parents and children really free?
In America, it's not uncommon for people to have to sell their homes and liquidate their belongings so they can pay for things like chemotherapy, organ transplants and other treatments for chronic illnesses. Is that freedom?
You see, freedom does not mean merely liberty. The founding fathers said as much when they spelled out man's inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most Americans have liberty, but far too few have access to what I would call a life and happiness. That's because there does not exist the governmental controls to guarantee those things, and that's because the government is underfunded -- taxes are too low.
Jon K
11-10-2005, 03:57 PM
OK, let's say you convinced me - but how is it possible that he got elected AGAIN, after almost ruining the US economy? Bill Clinton left a large surplus in the federal reserves treasury, and Georgie-boy not only spent it, but made a deficit! I'm not able to grasp the mental state of people who strive to make theit own lives harder (and more expensive).
Maybe the problem is in the government and it's ecological unawareness. Here you cannot even import a car that's older than 7 years, and leaded fuel is VERY hard to find so people do not have the choice but to switch to newer, smaller and more economical cars with catalythic converters.
You honestly think Clinton left Bush with an ideal situation? Perhaps you forgot that during Clinton's time in office we came close to fighting in the middle east like we are now. Notice I used the word "close". He didn't do anything, he put it off put it off put it off. Now, you're trying to tell me that Bill Clinton left allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll this money sparkling in a big white room and George Bush (and you say this as if George Bush can single handedly designate expenses) spent it greedily. In reality, where I live, Bill Clinton kept his pants down and his smile up, doing nothing in the middle east while our embassies were being attacked. So yeah, if by "left huge amounts of money" you meant "left civil issues with countries in the mid east" then I agree with you. Otherwise, you might see the coorelation to the amount of money in reserve and the amount of political and military banter that would have to be done.
Jon K
11-10-2005, 03:58 PM
WOW! I must admit, I am impressed with your insight in all this stuff! You are a breath of reason in this thread :)
Btw., can I come live in Canada? It sounds like the american dream, but without Bush and all the negative stuff :)
You definitely can go live in Canada or Mexico or Israel if you want. Open your eyes and rediscover your surroundings - nothing is keeping you from leaving. Except common sense.
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 03:59 PM
Quite the contrary. currently, not many people anywhere are complaining about how free they are, and the complainers get the pub. So yes, we have lost some freedom. We have traded it for a little more security, or at least feeling of security, and mainly only in airports. but overall, i believe that the american population is more free to decide their own destiny than the rest of the world. you feel free in your country because you have never known the freedom we have.
I am certain that I am more free in my country then you are in yours, and it's mainly because my country is in transition and there are no strict rules about anything. And before you say anything - that's not good either. There are, like, a million loopholes in the law, and most of people do whatever they want. Interestingly enough, violence and crime rates are very low. I guess people cheating on taxes are less prone to perform a criminal act or an act of violence. :)
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 04:09 PM
You honestly think Clinton left Bush with an ideal situation? Perhaps you forgot that during Clinton's time in office we came close to fighting in the middle east like we are now. Notice I used the word "close". He didn't do anything, he put it off put it off put it off. Now, you're trying to tell me that Bill Clinton left allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll this money sparkling in a big white room and George Bush (and you say this as if George Bush can single handedly designate expenses) spent it greedily. In reality, where I live, Bill Clinton kept his pants down and his smile up, doing nothing in the middle east while our embassies were being attacked. So yeah, if by "left huge amounts of money" you meant "left civil issues with countries in the mid east" then I agree with you. Otherwise, you might see the coorelation to the amount of money in reserve and the amount of political and military banter that would have to be done.
When someone attacks your embassy, it usually doesn't happen without a good reason. I honesty don't think that US didn't do ANYTHING to provoke such behaviour.
Jon K
11-10-2005, 04:13 PM
When someone attacks your embassy, it usually doesn't happen without a good reason. I honesty don't think that US didn't do ANYTHING to provoke such behaviour.
What did the US do? Because I am positive we weren't the ones to throw grenades through windows.
Yes, they do get attacked without reason - unless you consider US Embassy existence a "reason" for attack.
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 04:18 PM
You definitely can go live in Canada or Mexico or Israel if you want. Open your eyes and rediscover your surroundings - nothing is keeping you from leaving. Except common sense.
I was considering life in Canada, but I hate the cold :) Here I have mediterranean warm climate but less money. There I would have more money and shitty weather. Ah, why is life so complicated?! :)
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 04:21 PM
What did the US do? Because I am positive we weren't the ones to throw grenades through windows.
Yes, they do get attacked without reason - unless you consider US Embassy existence a "reason" for attack.
You tend to oversimplify things - Bush likes to do that, too. :) I think politics is a lot more complicated and multilayered. And don't forget - you know only selected stuff that is marked as "appropriate" for american viewers. It's like that everywhere in the world, no matter how much people want to think that freedom of speech/information exchange exists.
Jon K
11-10-2005, 04:31 PM
I didn't think you wanted to go in depth with this. You get my point. I could un-oversimplify things if you wanted...
Interceptor
11-10-2005, 04:40 PM
I didn't think you wanted to go in depth with this. You get my point. I could un-oversimplify things if you wanted...
Well, I said I didn't want to start a flame war, and as I can see, this discussion is quite civilized, and to me - very educative. We may have different views/opinions, but I find it very interesting to exchange them. I hope the others don't mind - after all, the subject says OT, right? :)
You tend to oversimplify things - Bush likes to do that, too. :) I think politics is a lot more complicated and multilayered. And don't forget - you know only selected stuff that is marked as "appropriate" for american viewers. It's like that everywhere in the world, no matter how much people want to think that freedom of speech/information exchange exists.
that is false. with the internet one can get all the information and points of view he wants. i read all kinds of news sources everyday, the best of them imo being the bbc. do you seriously think that you are not able the news we do in croatia? who marks the news as "for american consupmtion" and "for croatian consumtion" only. the information is available everywhere, except my n korea, china, etc. the difference is the attitude it is written with, and a good citizen should be able to sort through that.
BigKriss
11-10-2005, 05:16 PM
Here it is:
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103048
New Euro Golf!. Just look at that fat torque!.
:p ah the Lancia Delta S4 rally car.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6015/lancia12rh.jpg
Depends on how you define freedom. Americans are free to drive what they like, think what they like, say what they like, and many other things. Yes, that is freedom of a sort.
But 50,000,000 Americans live in poverty. Are they really free?
Millions of Americans go to schools that are dangerous, dilapidated, ill-funded and downright dysfunctional. Those children will be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. Are they really free?
50mil in poverty, huh?
Most americans defined as living in "poverty" have a place to live, a car, multiple electronic devices, and freedom to advance in society more than they think possible when they try.
The average American in poverty gross annual income is higher the Per Capita Income of many (if not most) third world countries.
Nobody is refused healthcare in the U.S, if you're going to die from some horrible treatable disease, the hospital won't turn you away...you'll be treated, and then you can worry about the bills later.
Also you dont need to sell your house to pay medical bills since your home is exempt if you go bankrupt.
Oh well, I'll go back to living in my evil country that kills own people, is destroying the planet, and took away much of my freedoms. oh wait a minute, I dont live in china.
I guess I'll just head out to the woods and kill some deer with my legal firearm before its taken away too. Mmmm...venison. :p
Johntee540
11-10-2005, 06:42 PM
Be very afraid. We have given up more than a "few" Freedoms in exchange for "so-called" security.
And do you really feel more secure? Now that the Bush Doctrine has made more enemies for the US than it has extinguished?
I am a little older than most here on the board - I remember the abuses of the FBI and J Edgar Hoover. The Patriot Act threatens the very base of Freedom that we take for granted today.
Additionally, we have an Administration that has admittedly lied to us. And they justify it because of 9/11. The very fact that our government is so arrogant that it feels that it can conduct policy in secret and lie to the people should scare the **** out of you.
Side note: Hey - If Bush is lying - does that mean we get to use torture to make him talk?
Again - I remember Nixon and the arrogance of power he had - thinking it was "okay" to manipulate the government to support his agenda. And we all know what happened then.
Side Note: Bush's approval rating today is lower than Nixon's before he resigned; Lower than Carter's whom everybody hated; Lower than Reagan's during Iran-Contra; and here's the kicker - Lower than CLINTON's during Blow-jobgate.
IMHO - Our country is headed for danger. - JT
Traian
11-10-2005, 06:50 PM
I don't live in the US, but I do get American news. I also get Canadian and French news. Some of the American media is pretty off the wall, but at least there is no shortage of viewpoints. Canadians may say a nice word about Bush when up against the wall, but I have NEVER ever heard one good thing from the French media. I'm not supporting George Bush, many of the attacks are just plain innacurate and it is tiring to not get an unbiased and truthful viewpoint....ever!
A majority of the US people voted for Bush. I don't know why, but it sure wasn't because they were brainwashed into it. So Why does the rest of the world think they are so much more knowledgeable, and 'free' to receive the 'truth'? Interceptor, how many people in Croatia feel the same way you do? Now how many people feel the opposite way? There are far more and better reasons for unanimity then simply being 'right'...
Johntee540
11-10-2005, 06:51 PM
You honestly think Clinton left Bush with an ideal situation? Perhaps you forgot that during Clinton's time in office we came close to fighting in the middle east like we are now. Notice I used the word "close". He didn't do anything, he put it off put it off put it off. Now, you're trying to tell me that Bill Clinton left allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll this money sparkling in a big white room and George Bush (and you say this as if George Bush can single handedly designate expenses) spent it greedily. In reality, where I live, Bill Clinton kept his pants down and his smile up, doing nothing in the middle east while our embassies were being attacked. So yeah, if by "left huge amounts of money" you meant "left civil issues with countries in the mid east" then I agree with you. Otherwise, you might see the coorelation to the amount of money in reserve and the amount of political and military banter that would have to be done.
JonK - Clinton DID leave the largest Surplus Budget in the last 100 years when he left Office. So yes it was there before Bushco and the neo-cons spent it all.
Bush has not vetoed ONE spending bill since he was elected. The republicans who control everything have spent this country into a huge hole.
The Neo-cons have built the largest government ever, spent more $$ than any other administration; and have been involved in more corruption than I can remember. They have basically become what the democrats became after 40 years in power - but the Neo-Cons did it in 10 years. - JT
Jon K
11-11-2005, 12:38 AM
Anyway...
to the people interested in composite/hyper/twin charging whatever you want to call it... look my way around summertime. :) That's all I am saying.
Interceptor
11-11-2005, 01:42 AM
A majority of the US people voted for Bush. I don't know why, but it sure wasn't because they were brainwashed into it. So Why does the rest of the world think they are so much more knowledgeable, and 'free' to receive the 'truth'? Interceptor, how many people in Croatia feel the same way you do? Now how many people feel the opposite way? There are far more and better reasons for unanimity then simply being 'right'...Personally, I don't know anyone who thinks Bush is a good leader. People are starting to question the sanity of american citizens for chosing him. The rest of Europe is pretty much on par with that.
Jimbo
11-11-2005, 02:39 AM
Personally, I don't know anyone who thinks Bush is a good leader. People are starting to question the sanity of american citizens for chosing him. The rest of Europe is pretty much on par with that.
I do, And is the Europe you're talking about the one that contains these huge riots in France and the political unrest in Germany and many other problems, not exactly the perfect society you might think exists there. Now while the United States is not run exactly the way I would want it to be, I find it funny how some people think Bush is literally the devil incarnate. I mean do you really believe this guy is just pure evil??? As a pretty moderate American I think Bush is simply trying to do the best he can at what can be considered the hardest job in the world.
And back on topic, I believe there have been certain diesel truck engines with both turbos and superchargers combined for quite a few years.
angrypancake
11-11-2005, 03:11 AM
Bush may not be the devil incarnate himself, but he sure as **** isn't the leader of this country. It's is being run by Karl Rove and Bush's administration, and they picked a bad puppet in Bush to sit there looking like Alfred E Newman.
emw525E34
11-11-2005, 05:55 AM
Wow Kris, nice schematic of the Delta S4. It has double shocks in the rear!. Learned a new thing today. I thought only the Baja cars had these.
I would opt for the Auto Quattro Coupe of the era. That was a wilder drive than the E30M3!.
emw525E34
11-11-2005, 05:58 AM
Well said, and nice Bush Mobile too!. It probably had a couple of Patriot missile banks hidden in there somewhere....
emw525E34
11-11-2005, 06:05 AM
Folks its a civilized discussion and points are taken. For us Global car consumers, there are only a few havens left, as most countries tax people to death in different ways.
As Jon pointed out, in Asia they tax by engine capacity. And herrendous parking and toll charges, although gasoline is relatively cheap. Thank God.
In Europe , gasoline costs a fortune and insurance plus indirect taxes are pretty high as well , even though cars may be cheaper. I really don't know which is best but there are mid-points and sweet spots that consumers can leverage.
In all, most or us are given a raw deal in our countries of origin, its life. Thanks for the long debate. Enjoyed reading this, I was shocked it attracted so many replies. Have a good weekend guys.
Interceptor
11-11-2005, 06:31 AM
IMHO - Our country is headed for danger.US has a lot of responsibility being the most powerful nation in the world - if it's headed for danger, the rest of the world will follow, I'm sure.
Interceptor
11-11-2005, 06:34 AM
I do, And is the Europe you're talking about the one that contains these huge riots in France and the political unrest in Germany and many other problems, not exactly the perfect society you might think exists there. Now while the United States is not run exactly the way I would want it to be, I find it funny how some people think Bush is literally the devil incarnate. I mean do you really believe this guy is just pure evil??? As a pretty moderate American I think Bush is simply trying to do the best he can at what can be considered the hardest job in the world.Riots in France affect mostly France, and political unrest in Germany affects mostly Germany - US administration is playing a role of world police, that's a bit different.
Okay....aren't we a bit of topic here ?I thought turbo's and politics didn't mix, guess I was wrong....
Interceptor
11-11-2005, 08:41 AM
Okay....aren't we a bit of topic here ?I thought turbo's and politics didn't mix, guess I was wrong....Didn't you notice the OT in the subject of this thread? :)
Jon K
11-11-2005, 11:51 AM
Personally, I don't know anyone who thinks Bush is a good leader. People are starting to question the sanity of american citizens for chosing him. The rest of Europe is pretty much on par with that.I might be TOTALLY off base with this... but could the reason you don't know anyone who thinks Bush is a good leader be because you put your unfounded opinion out so often and perhaps people who do like how the country is run are afraid to let you know?
You definitely just made a kerry remark: "The people of the US are questioning the sanity of the people." Good one.
Jon K
11-11-2005, 11:59 AM
Also,
just a reminder. There's currently vacancy at Hotel Iraq.
http://currierd.typepad.com/photos/paint_it_black_so_this_is/iraq_hotel_truck_bomb_mar_9_05_141.jpg
Not quite a Motel 6, but hey, you guy want out, go for it!
callen
11-11-2005, 12:01 PM
He does as well as other Rep. and Dems.....all pandering to big oil and the big three. Hence half the vehicles sold in US are gas guzzling Trucks and Suv's that don't have to meet passenger care CAFE standards....
Course 95% of Expeditions, Excursions and F350's have freakin W stickers on the back window if that tells you anything......WWJD? conservatives???
OOPS sorry about going here...just can't help myself.
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 12:24 PM
50mil in poverty, huh?
Most americans defined as living in "poverty" have a place to live, a car, multiple electronic devices, and freedom to advance in society more than they think possible when they try.
That's not my figure. It comes from your own government's definition of poverty. And, no, they don't have cars and 'multiple electronic devices'. To suggest that the reason the impoverished don't advance in society is because they don't try is unbelieveably ignorant. That's something a rich person would say, which you doubtlessly are compared to the countless disadvanged that don't have access to a decent elementary school, let alone a decent employer.
The average American in poverty gross annual income is higher the Per Capita Income of many (if not most) third world countries.
Yes, but the cost of living is similarly higher. In the Third World, a decent house doesn't cost $100,000+ and feeding your family of five for a week doesn't cost $200. In terms of purchasing power, they are indeed as impoverished as many in the Third World.
Nobody is refused healthcare in the U.S, if you're going to die from some horrible treatable disease, the hospital won't turn you away...you'll be treated, and then you can worry about the bills later.
Sure, I can worry about that $50,000 surgery bill later. And what if I only make $12,000 a year? Or nothing? And have no insurance?
Also you dont need to sell your house to pay medical bills since your home is exempt if you go bankrupt.
Ah, bankruptcy -- a fine solution (as if!).
Oh well, I'll go back to living in my evil country that kills own people, is destroying the planet, and took away much of my freedoms. oh wait a minute, I dont live in china.
Oh, come on! Are you saying that because your country isn't the worst in the world that there's no point in seeking improvements? That things would have to get as bad as they are in China before you'd think something ought to be done? Quit whining and admit things in your country aren't perfect. Are they anywhere?
The measure of a society is in how it treats its most helpless members. The culture of apathy and every-man-for-himself that's pervasive in America is not working. The rest of the West has left you behind and is reaping the rewards. It doesn't take much to see that.
angrypancake
11-11-2005, 12:36 PM
Whether or not you like Bush, or want your Bush shaved, the fact is, none of us live in Darfur where horrific attrocities are committed on a daily basis and there is no relief in sight. Whether or not I think my country's leader is a total douchebag, or whether I would take a bullet for him (hell no) I take solace in the fact that as a 19 year old kid I can wake up in the mornings, after getting a nights sleep not marred with explosions and wails of the tortured, and get in the drivers seat of a BMW. Bush is a small price to pay for every day luxuries like that.
Guapo
11-11-2005, 01:05 PM
It's easy to cast stones, and Europe has plenty of practice at it.
Dave M
11-11-2005, 01:05 PM
Your taxes also pay for your school if you go into trades and dont use it. you pay twice for your health care if you dont want to wait in line and go to a private practice, (i believe this is true in Canada if your system works like it does in the european contries i have experience with). you are free to support yourself if you cant work? is that what you call social security? thats others supporting you. and...freedom from violence? wtf?
Im not sure what you mean by more taxes=more freedom. i understand the opposite isnt always true, but being able to choose yourself where your money goes is more often than not considered more freedom.
Well, I usually just read threads such as these and have a good laugh, but I must reply to a response to a rather well written post by jaylebo. Peks, you are only 7 or 8 hours from Thunder Bay Ontario where I currently live. I keep faith that our neighbors to the south hold a minimum standard of knowledge when trying to convey messages about Canada. You have done a good job, but I have to comment on a couple of things.
You are correct; we may attend 'subsidized' Universities and can also, if we so desire, collect welfare upon graduation. There just happens to be a lower percentage of the population that ends up earning less and living in what we consider a ‘western or developed state of poverty’. In my opinion, its all relative. If you consider yourself lucky when you hit the sack at night, then you probably are, regardless of where you live. I’m likely mixing posts here, but be honest and tell me that you believe that those living in ‘impoverished’ scenarios surrounded by those with wealth are experiencing as many worry free nights as the rest. I don’t know, but I have my opinion.
Jaylebo, in my opinion, glamorized the current state of the Canadian health care system by excluding the time we may wait for certain ‘things’, but on the whole, I’ll take a seat in line for the security that I’ll never have to worry about my medical bills while laying in the hospital. It’s a trade-off and one that I’ve become comfortable with (speed of service for economy and being able to trust in a government to save my ass). I have yet to pay a penny out of ‘pocket’ for health care (not including bandades and polysporin).
The real reason I want to reply to this post, is to reinforce the FACT that Canada suffers from far less domestic and international (real or threatened) violence than our neighbor (at least for now). I would live in the US, have traveled and lived short periods of time in many US cities, have family in the US, and also believe there are fundamental differences that make for some to choose one over the other.
All the best,
Dave M
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 01:18 PM
Thanks for the props, Dave.
I never meant to suggest that the Canadian healthcare system is perfect. It sure ain't! But I speak from experience:
My father recently passed away after battling cancer for 5 years. During that time, he had three surgeries (one of them on his brain) and about a year of chemo. Not to mention countless visits and stays at hospitals talking to oncologists, surgeons, palliative care specialists, getting x-rays, CAT scans, MRI scans, etc.
He did not get the world's best care, but it was pretty darn good. But I often think about the monetary value of the care he received. Certainly it was well in excess of $250,000. My parents are not rich, and I hate to think of the position my widowed mother would now be in if she had somehow been forced to come up with that money on her own.
IMHO, the access to free healthcare my father received is an inestimable component of "freedom". I would not trade it for lower taxes.
JT-
I wasnt saying i am not worried about the Patriot act or losing freedoms. i am more paranoid than most about trading away freedom. definitely there are both good and bad ie overreaching powers granted.
i was more specifically debating the difference between europe and the us. the powers given to authorities through the patriot act have been held by european govts forever. ie they have less freedom. they are, of course, starting from the other end of the spectrum historically. they have been "granted" or won freedoms since medieval times, whereas we have had them taken away since our founding. (this is just in general, yes there are a million exceptions)
and about feeling more secure. the country as a whole feels less secure since 9/11. are you going to blame that on bush doctrine? dont, lest i stop taking anything you say seriously. conspiracy theory is just that.
Side note: Hey - If Bush is lying - does that mean we get to use torture to make him talk?
dave-
i never professed to know any minute details about canadian healthcare and i trust your little jab was in good fun. as you prob read in my post i was basing it on my knowledge of european national healthcare systems, one in particular.
My grandfather in Finland was in line for a pacemaker when he had a near-fatal heart attack. and he'd been waiting almost a year. this of course is an extreme example, but a true story.
i just dont understand the mentality of needing 100% security. "however i lead my life, the govt will take care of me." id like to think a person can take resposibility for himself, take a little risk to become little better. im leaving myself open for all kinds of flames with this, but i cant think of a better way to word it right now.
you a finlander dave? i know theres a bunch up there in t-bay
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 01:52 PM
i just dont understand the mentality of needing 100% security. "however i lead my life, the govt will take care of me." id like to think a person can take resposibility for himself, take a little risk to become little better.
Of course you're right, Peks. But I didn't read anyone hear advocating 100% security.
There's communism, where you give everything to the government and the government looks after you (in theory, anyway). Then there's laissez-faire capitalism, which essentially espouses a hands-off government and it's every man for himself (this is what the Republicans advocate, and roughly describes the current state of the US). There's a happy medium, I think, which much of the West now enjoys.
None of us wants a society where there's no incentive to make something of yourself, but many of us find the polar opposite equally disturbing.
and im not advocating the extreme you infer i am. its just simplifying to make a point, as you and everyone else here is doing.
there's laissez-faire capitalism, which essentially espouses a hands-off government and it's every man for himself (this is what the Republicans advocate, and roughly describes the current state of the US).
i just happen to think the happy medium is where the us is.
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 02:06 PM
and im not advocating the extreme you infer i am. its just simplifying to make a point, as you and everyone else here is doing.
i just happen to think the happy medium is where the us is.
Oh, okay. Fair enough, then.
I learned this thought experiment while I was a political science major at univeristy:
Imagine you're not born yet, and you have no idea to whom you'll be born. Rich or poor, advantaged or disadvantaged, black or white -- you don't know who you're going to be. Now, design the perfect governement for your country.
Big guess here, but I would think that, given that situation, most people would choose to create a government somewhat more socialized than the United States'. I mean, in the thought experiment above, you've got a good chance of being born into poverty or to be the victim of racism, a broken home, or any other number of hardships. If I had to be one of those disadvantaged people, the US is the last Western country I'd want to live in. I'd much rather be an impoverished Canadian, Brit, German, or whatever, because those impoverished people are not quite so bad off as the American ones. That's just my opinion, though.
many would, i am sure. i would take my chances and go for the us. to quote someone earlier on this thread, this is something a "rich man" would say, but i believe in the us even the poorest have a chance of achieving unimaginable quality of life if they just set their mind and however meager skills to it. the road there is probably tougher, but it does not end in such a steep tax grade that you come to a point where it is not worth continuing on.
and im not rich, im a piss poor student living on my own paying for school on my own at a partially subsidized state university(established to help even the poorest go to school and make something of themselves) and scraping together a little bit each month to keep my moneypit e34 on the road
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 02:31 PM
many would, i am sure. i would take my chances and go for the us. to quote someone earlier on this thread, this is something a "rich man" would say, but i believe in the us even the poorest have a chance of achieving unimaginable quality of life if they just set their mind and however meager skills to it. the road there is probably tougher, but it does not end in such a steep tax grade that you come to a point where it is not worth continuing on.
and im not rich, im a piss poor student living on my own paying for school on my own at a partially subsidized state university(established to help even the poorest go to school and make something of themselves) and scraping together a little bit each month to keep my moneypit e34 on the road
I said that, actually.
I know you're not rich-rich, but you go to university and you have a car and a computer, which makes you much richer than many.
You sort of raise the question: why are the poor poor? -- and that's a whole other discussion. You suggest it's because they are somehow lacking. I suggest that it's much more complicated than that, and that American poverty stems from socio-economic conditions that predate reconstruction.
But my fingers are too tired to have that argument.
Dave M
11-11-2005, 02:33 PM
dave-
i never professed to know any minute details about canadian healthcare and i trust your little jab was in good fun. as you prob read in my post i was basing it on my knowledge of european national healthcare systems, one in particular.
My grandfather in Finland was in line for a pacemaker when he had a near-fatal heart attack. and he'd been waiting almost a year. this of course is an extreme example, but a true story.
i just dont understand the mentality of needing 100% security. "however i lead my life, the govt will take care of me." id like to think a person can take resposibility for himself, take a little risk to become little better. im leaving myself open for all kinds of flames with this, but i cant think of a better way to word it right now.
are you a finlander dave? i know theres a bunch up there in t-bay
It was a jab; one based on a stereotype proliferated by Canadians who get a rush of pride by believing that Americans are ignorant to Canadian affairs. I’ve just called myself a jerk and, yes, the jab was definitely thrown in jest.
With regard to Canada or any other country for that matter, there is no perception of, or expectation for, 100% security. I don’t believe that receiving a level of benefit from the government causes one to ill-appreciate what it requires to care for one-self or, for that matter, forget how to do so. A healthy (pardon the pun) degree of tax-based government leavening, does not need to compromise capitalism in a society. My biased view is that we here in the great white north can have our cake and eat it too:)
As for Thunder Bay, I’m not Finnish, but my basement has a Sauna!! T-Bay has the largest Finnish poulation outside of Finland (apparently) and we live in the heart of ‘Little Finland’, just up from the famous Hoito restaurant. I have met a few Pekkas along the way as well.
Jaylebo, I lost my father to cancer a number of years ago when the knowledge wasn’t there to quickly diagnose and treat. I’m sorry to hear your loss, but glad he had a better chance to battle it out.
Dave M
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 02:35 PM
Jaylebo, I lost my father to cancer a number of years ago when the knowledge wasn’t there to quickly diagnose and treat. I’m sorry to hear your loss, but glad he had a better chance to battle it out.
Dave M
Thanks.
I didn't tell that story for pity points or anything ;) I just wanted to demonstrate that any of us can be struck by disease, and none of us deserves the hardship of having to pay for it ourselves in our most difficult time.
nobody gave me the car and the computer, and im paying for my education, too. i worked years as a painter, starting at age 16 and before that making minimum wage at a bakery to pay for everything ive got. i have a supporting family and i owe it most if not all to my upbringing, but my family is by no means wealthy. Maybe im too much of an optimist, but i think with a little will, theres always a way.
and why are the poor poor? my fingers are sore, too...
theres this crazy thing called health insurance.. and yes our systems a little crazy right now. looking for a fix... suggestions are welcome. i just dont believe we need to go to the extreme of nationalizing the whole system
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 02:59 PM
nobody gave me the car and the computer, and im paying for my education, too. i worked years as a painter, starting at age 16 and before that making minimum wage at a bakery to pay for everything ive got. i have a supporting family and i owe it most if not all to my upbringing, but my family is by no means wealthy.
Right. But take, for example, a black child who's growing up in a poor part of the American south. His father is in prison because he never received an education. His brother is in a gang because his mom was too busy working four jobs to raise him right. His school doesn't have a single computer and most of the kids are armed. He's discriminated against because he's black and because he talks funny (again, no education). The reason his family is in such dire straits can be traced back to reconstruction, when his ancestors were freed from slavery but given none of the opportunities afforded to white Americans. Decades of racism kept them down, and still do.
Can you see that, for him, doing as you did would be impossible?
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 03:14 PM
theres this crazy thing called health insurance.. and yes our systems a little crazy right now. looking for a fix... suggestions are welcome. i just dont believe we need to go to the extreme of nationalizing the whole system
There are four major things wrong with health insurance. First, not everyone can afford it. Second, insurance companies are for-profit entities, and healthcare should not be a for-profit industry. Third, insurance companies are loathe to pay out, so every claim results in a fight, which is the last thing a chronically ill patient needs and deserves. Fourth, insurance policies have limits, while the amount of care a chronic disease can require does not.
As long as healthcare remains in the hands of for-profit organizations accessibility to it will suffer. For-profits prefer rich customers to poor ones, and so the poor receive a lower standard of healthcare. Or they avoid going to the doctor out of fear of increasing premiums, so they get sicker. Nobody ought to be making a profit from the sick. So that means nationalizing the system.
It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's the only one. It is not right to fund a multi-billion dollar industry on the savings of patients and their families, and it's not right to create an incentive for people to stay at home when they need medical care.
Everything that's wrong with American healthcare can be traced to the fact that the people in charge are trying to earn a profit. Put it in the hands of government and that will stop. Sure, it will become less efficient -- at making money. But it will be what the population needs it to be instead of a self-serving apathetic industry.
i guess youre exaggerating to make a point, the story is preposterous.
sheesh. the father is in prison because hes uneducated?
sure its a terrible problem that kids grow up in broken families. i guess thats nothing higher taxes wont fix.
racism is terrible. everywhere it occurs. france is working out some difficulties now, i hear. but take a look at the scholarships offered for college students, i cant even apply for most of them because im a white male.
if they want it bad enough, there is a way to succeed. some of us have bigger hurdles. but the skies the limit.
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 03:24 PM
i guess youre exaggerating to make a point, the story is preposterous.
sheesh. the father is in prison because hes uneducated?
Yes. No education means no job and no appreciation for the rights of others and the norms of society. No money means no parenting because the parents work 80 hours a week for peanuts instead of raising their children. All this leads to a life of crime.
In American prisons, black inmates outnumber white ones 7:1. Is that because black people are more violent or naturally predisposed to criminal behaviour? Of course not! The problem is socio-economic and is decades old. The existence of affirmative action which you alluded to confirms that your own government feels this way. They are trying, with limited success, to compensate for generations of oppression.
I was not exaggerating. You coldly underestimate the disadvantages of growing up poor and black in America.
i grow weary. canada is great. you have no problems. america is evil, we are ignorant fools.
sure blacks have been oppressed. sure the govt has been compensating for it.
and they have so many opportunities in america.
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 04:05 PM
i grow weary. canada is great. you have no problems. america is evil, we are ignorant fools.
sure blacks have been oppressed. sure the govt has been compensating for it.
and they have so many opportunities in america.
Why do you resort to that kind of talk? I think I'm being reasonable. I suggested that advancing despite being poor and black is harder than you think. If you want to take that as a broadstroke anti-American sentiment, go ahead, but that's not what I said and it's not what I meant.
You are more priviledged than you know, and the underpriviledged are more underpriviledged than you know. They are not poor because they are lazy. That is the very attitude that keeps them poor.
That's all I'm saying.
Guapo
11-11-2005, 04:26 PM
Right. But take, for example, a black child who's growing up in a poor part of the American south. His father is in prison because he never received an education. His brother is in a gang because his mom was too busy working four jobs to raise him right. His school doesn't have a single computer and most of the kids are armed. He's discriminated against because he's black and because he talks funny (again, no education). The reason his family is in such dire straits can be traced back to reconstruction, when his ancestors were freed from slavery but given none of the opportunities afforded to white Americans. Decades of racism kept them down, and still do.
Can you see that, for him, doing as you did would be impossible?
Hi, welcome to 1880
its just that.. i grow weary of sensational arguments. saying that no education=no job=no money=no parenting=life of crime=jail.. sure it happens. it happens all over the world. does it happen only to blacks? does it happen only to american blacks? does one have no opportunities to step out of the cycle? i believe that endless opportunities abound at each step. sure they have a much more difficult time of getting out of it than i do. that doesnt mean they cant. if they have the motivation they can. living among people who have made it is a motivation, not a deterrent. I cant look at life so pessimistically.
my attitude keeps them poor? or the attitude of the poor keeps them poor?
i dont think either is true. but the attitude of the poor can sure get them out of poverty.
Guapo
11-11-2005, 04:37 PM
Yes. No education means no job and no appreciation for the rights of others and the norms of society. No money means no parenting because the parents work 80 hours a week for peanuts instead of raising their children. All this leads to a life of crime.
No, breaking the law lands people in prison. Even in Canada.
In American prisons, black inmates outnumber white ones 7:1. Is that because black people are more violent or naturally predisposed to criminal behaviour? Of course not! The problem is socio-economic and is decades old.
Agreed.
The existence of affirmative action which you alluded to confirms that your own government feels this way. They are trying, with limited success, to compensate for generations of oppression.
And which has proven to be unsuccessful and a drag on society in general. Affirmative action laws are being overturned every year.
I was not exaggerating. You coldly underestimate the disadvantages of growing up poor and black in America.
You grew up poor and black in America?
Jay 535i
11-11-2005, 04:40 PM
its just that.. i grow weary of sensational arguments. saying that no education=no job=no money=no parenting=life of crime=jail.. sure it happens. it happens all over the world. does it happen only to blacks? does it happen only to american blacks? does one have no opportunities to step out of the cycle? i believe that endless opportunities abound at each step. sure they have a much more difficult time of getting out of it than i do. that doesnt mean they cant. if they have the motivation they can. living among people who have made it is a motivation, not a deterrent. I cant look at life so pessimistically.
my attitude keeps them poor? or the attitude of the poor keeps them poor?
i dont think either is true. but the attitude of the poor can sure get them out of poverty.
What I said was, admittedly, a simplification of a complex argument that I haven't the time nor the expertise to adequately articulate here.
To put it succintly, I think your statement, "endless opportunities abound at each step" is not true for millions of Americans (and others too, but the problem is greater in America then elsewhere in the Western world).
I can't prove that "endless opportunities" don't abound. But if you believe that they do, then the only explanation remaining for why the poor remain poor is that it's their own fault, and I don't accept that.
To Guapo:
Yes, it is commiting crimes that land people in jail, but what causes people to commit crimes? Poverty, mostly.
I didn't say affirmative action was good. I just said it's an implicit admission that oppression exists in America.
No, I'm not poor and black, but I see the people that are and I see how unfairly disadvantaged they are, and how pulling themselves out of the endless cycle of oppression and poverty seems hopeless, and how the common belief that they earned their poverty by being lazy perpetuates the cycle and is itself oppressive. I don't know why you don't see it.
emw525E34
11-11-2005, 11:40 PM
Shucks Jose, Turbo and anything just about mix nicely as we witness here.
I really do not want to get started on another topic like "Intelligent Design". Seems that people in power are not doing things that count anymore. Sigh!.
Interceptor
11-12-2005, 05:38 AM
Shucks Jose, Turbo and anything just about mix nicely as we witness here.
I really do not want to get started on another topic like "Intelligent Design". Seems that people in power are not doing things that count anymore. Sigh!.
Just give us bread and games, that's all we need :)
pundit
11-12-2005, 07:25 AM
No, it's the Bush-alike redneck mentality that WANTS larger engines. Don't forget, Bush was elected TWICE by more than a half of voters in the US. I'm not saying ALL americans think that way - people on this forum are usually completely different than the american stereotype. The problem is in that other half of the US population, that don't even know what internet is, and that sees a leader in that moronic Deliverance-boy.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but the fact is - US spends the largest quantities of oil in the world, and it has less than 300 million! If chinese people were to spend that much oil "per capita" the oil reserves would be long gone.
I heard that within five years China will consume more oil than the U.S.
RIPDOTCOM
11-12-2005, 08:25 AM
Here it is:
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103048
New Euro Golf!. Just look at that fat torque!.
:p
Twin Charging has been around for years. About time we see it in a production car. I read an article in either turbo magazine or SCC mag. where someone twin charged a mini and I believe there is even a kit available.
Interceptor
11-12-2005, 12:08 PM
I heard that within five years China will consume more oil than the U.S.
Yes, but China has a billion people more than the US. If chinese were to spend the same amount of oil "per capita" as americans do, the oil would be long gone. Growing oil demand in large countries such as China and India is what's going to speed up oil consumption on a global scale, and why we have around 30 years of oil supply left. After that, it's mayhem. Luckily, I'll be old and probably won't give a rat's ass about it :)
High Compression II
11-12-2005, 02:08 PM
I've been saying for years that the solution is obvious. Don't tax high-displacement engines. Don't tax old cars. Don't tax SUVs. INCREASE THE TAX ON FUEL!
.
Tax increases on fuel,-- DO NOT WORK!--I know, because I live in the UK, where fuel tax is 75% of the cost of the fuel, and is probably the most expensive fuel in the world bar one or two places!!
5 dollars a gallon anyone???
Dont think so!
The idiots still buy gas-guzzling 4x4 and SUV's to drop their brats off at school with, cluttering up the roads at rush-hour, and getting themselves into financial problems just to 'keep-up-with the Jonses'--Then they take out a consolidation loan................
The trend it would appear, that in the UK, that 4x4's mostly were Diesel.....However, the more inefficient Petrol vehicles, aimed at the young exec are gaining popularity.--An up and coming exec, cant turn up to an important meeting in a clattering diesel can he..........
You cannot stop this by taxing fuel! Its all media driven Ads for 4x4 and SUV's made for more as a life-style addition,--A fashon accessory, that you absolutely must have to feel 'youve made it' than a vehicle--Most of the 4x4 in the UK, never go anywhere near the country let alone get mud on--Perish the thought..........!
Blame the Media and consumerism, NOT the price or tax on fuel.............
What tax increases on fuel does do, is make EVERYTHING you buy that has been transported in some way by road, MORE EXPENSIVE...............
Three dollars a loaf of bread anyone??
Interceptor
11-12-2005, 02:22 PM
It's easy to cast stones, and Europe has plenty of practice at it.
That is logical - America was discovered only 500 years ago, Europe has a much longer tradition in a lot of things - throwing rocks is only one of them :)
Interceptor
11-12-2005, 02:27 PM
I might be TOTALLY off base with this... but could the reason you don't know anyone who thinks Bush is a good leader be because you put your unfounded opinion out so often and perhaps people who do like how the country is run are afraid to let you know?
Wake up and smell the coffee - there is not a single european citizen that thinks US is being run right. Luckily, more and more americans are starting to see it - that is the reason Georgie-boy's rating is sinking like a rock. :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.