Posted on 04/09/2003 8:00:05 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
Will do!! Say, Let's do lunch sometime soon. For me, it kinda has to be on a Tuesday. Your turn to pick the place, jla.
Wow, great stuff!
Mud, can you go back into the achives and edit to to say FBD???
I just got home from school and I want to SCREAM...in a class of 16 we have a few libs and we had to do oral presentations tonight....grrr, those libs liked to rake me over the coals b/c of my stance on Tort Reform. You know libs..."sc**w the insurance companies, they have the money" they are too stoopid and short-sighted to see that costs even them in the end in the form of higher insurance premiums. That and our instructor did a piece on how the top 5% of the income earners pay 50% of the taxes, and they said that's fair...I said, really, if you and I both went to Marshall Fields and you had to pay $5000 for a couch and I only had to pay $500 for that exact same couch because I made less, is that fair????
I need a drink....what'd someone say about arguing with a pig??????? I'm soooooooo glad that most of the peeps on my study group are either moderates or conservatives...at least moderates will listen.
Off to open a bottle of Pinot Grigio....I need it tonight :O)
You want some company there?????
BTW...didn't Mud say he'd play Literati with us after tax day??????? do I sense cold feet?????
My report was on "tort reform" I merely pointed out (and these are documented facts) that Tort Costs in the year 2001 were $205 billion (yes, billion with a "b") accounting for 2.04% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product)That is a figure that has rose consistantly every year.
In contrast, the War in Iraq is going to cost us an estimated $70 billion accounting for far less than 1% of the GDP
By contrast, Viet Nam cost 12% of the GDP, WWI 24% of the GDP and WWII 130% of the GDP (yes 1 3 0 %)
The estimated cost per American for the war is a "whopping" (note sarcasm) $260 per person. HOWEVER, because our tax brackets are so "fair" (note further sarcasm) the cost per family is skewed....
The bottom 11% of earners pay no taxes; hence will pay $0 for the war
Bottom 20% of Tax Payes will pay $33 per family
Top 5% of Tax Payers will pay $4700 average per family for the war The Top 1% of Tax Payers will pay $13,000 per family
Those figures are based on the fact that the top 5% of tax payers, while earning only 28% of the income, pay 50% of the taxes. The top 1% of tax payers, while earning only 14% of the income pay 29% of the taxes.
Anyhow....that was my little "soap box" for tonight....made a few libs uneasy....oh well!
That could be true. I know of somebody who made 90K a year and had to pay 17K of taxes. Talk about thievery.
The top 1% of tax payers, while earning only 14% of the income pay 29% of the taxes.
How interesting.
Just remember that those who created this funny money that we all pay tax "interest" on don't pay taxes. I'm talking about those who created the federal reserve. Those who created the federal reserve own the world! We are all slaves to them!
Dear Editor,
I write this realizing you may not print it. You see, that is your right. I have the freedom of speech to say whatever I want, but you as private news organizations have the right not to print it or even pay heed to it. This is a lesson that the Hollywood celebrities, musicians, politicians and even your every day protestor need to learn.
Freedom of Speech gives you the right to say whatever you want. It does NOT give you the right to be heard, change minds or have anyone even pay attention to you. Further, it does not leave you devoid of the consequences for what you say. You are free to say whatever you want, but IF I find you have committed slander or liable against me I also have the right to sue you and recover. If I disagree with what you say, I have the right not to frequent your movies, buy your music, watch your newscast, read your books, vote for you or even acknowledge your existence. That is MY right. Your Freedom of Speech CANNOT supersede my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness afforded to me by that same constitution you wrap yourself in. My happiness is supporting causes I believe in. You that scream so loudly now about the constitution need to read the whole thing, you obviously are fixated on one amendment and have failed to see there are others. Additionally, if you are hired as a spokesperson by a private company, and your philosophy is different from that of those who hired you, that’s ok. But know this, if you choose to speak out on it, they have the right to fire you for differing with the mission and goals of their organization.
Say what you want, but know that you have to bear the consequences of what you say.
Sincerely,
Ok...that's it....what do all y'all think????
Interesting & thanks, Les.
I've seen a few *spy* photos of the new "C6" taken as it ran around the greater Detroit metro area; although, the car was heavily camoflaged.
According to the artist rendition pictured, it looks as if they're going to retain the present C5's doors, mirrors, & hood; IF, there's any truth to this drawing.
The thing which made me sit up & take notice to this new C6, & I mean really get excited?
Happened when I got my hands on the specs of the new powerplant this car supposedly will come equiped with.
Presently the C5 has a LS1 small block w/ 350BHP & 350#/ft of torque.
Truly some excellent numbers for an engine which is well within the CAFE mandated numbers.
Naturally, one can order the FRC ("fixed roof coupe") 6spd with the Z06 engine option (a.ka LS6) which is rated at 410BHP w/ ungodly torque *&* still delivering extremely good mileage; but, here's where the the story takes an odd twist.
Ford has just redesigned their aging Mustang; and, in a *lame* attempt to dethrone the Corvette's standard LS1 -- performnce-wise -- the Mustang will be available in the "Cobra" trim with a Eaton supercharged mill claiming to deliver 390BHP. (~keep in mind MT already tested THAT 390HP snake against the PRESENT LS1 350HP Corvette & *lost* in the quarter mile by several thousandths of a second -- an eternity in quarter-mile racing)
Still, The General knew damned well what Dearborn had up their sleeve with this new airpump-driven modular Ford motor; so, the *new* C6 will come equiped with the *LS6* as *standard* equipment; moreover, the *new* Z06 is rumored to be making somewhere in the neighborhood of 490BHP ~while STILL getting 24MPG highway!!
I dare say it won'r be too long before Ford starts lobbying Washington -- in earnest -- for "limits" on the HP output of GM's finest engineering efforts.
Lord knows it'll be the *only* way Ford'll ever "win" the honest way. :o)
BTW, a *second* year C6 -- hopefully debugged -- is in my future & my present '03 50th AE C5 will be the trade.
...& she said so, too. {g}
i'd guess i've danced a thousand miles to FADED LOVE!
free dixie,sw
"Ford has just redesigned their aging Mustang; and, in a *lame* attempt to dethrone the Corvette's standard LS1 -- performnce-wise -- the Mustang will be available in the "Cobra" trim with a Eaton supercharged mill claiming to deliver 390BHP. (~keep in mind MT already tested THAT 390HP snake against the PRESENT LS1 350HP Corvette & *lost* in the quarter mile by several thousandths of a second -- an eternity in quarter-mile racing)"
"Still, The General knew damned well what Dearborn had up their sleeve with this new airpump-driven modular Ford motor; so, the *new* C6 will come equiped with the *LS6* as *standard* equipment; moreover, the *new* Z06 is rumored to be making somewhere in the neighborhood of 490BHP ~while STILL getting 24MPG highway!! "
I guess the secret to all that power is a camless engine?
(electroniclly actuated)
Lan, with you're connections, you've probably got the inside scoop on this, haven't you, Mr. Injuneer? ;^)
"The strange part comes strait out of aviation history books. The high performance version of the C6 (possibly still named Z06) will be powered by a new generation of cam-less engine. That’s right, electronically actuated valves. Not only will this give the HP version of the C6 infinite valve timing, but close-to, if not north-of 500hp. Cam-less engines have been used for years in circular piston aircraft engines where placement of a cam is impossible.
Since publication-we’ve gotten wind that this cam-less engine may not be available at the start of production-despite the fact that Dave Hill has promised all 3 versions at the start.
Snake tamer is one word we look forward to using with the C6. This little bit of engine information has already gotten close to 14 people fired from GM, and is one of the C6’s most closely guarded secrets.
Yup, you got it.
Yet another GM first.
"Lan, with you're connections, you've probably got the inside scoop on this, haven't you, Mr. Injuneer?"
Right again, AC-Mon.
I wouldn't be so sure about that....marketing is done at all levels...even "Injuneers" have to have some clue about marketing so they can desgin things that will be appealing to the public, whether it be a car or a building....or something else...if it's designed to be unappealing, it's not marketable. Product design & "injuneering" often consults with marketing. :o)
I'm not going to start an argument here am I????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.