What American cars do you like? [Archive] - Page 4

Matra et Alpine

02-24-2005, 04:55 PM

You forgot twice elected governor, twice elected President, democracy to Afghanistan, disposed of a savage dictator in Iraq, a free election in Iraq, the hope of democracy to those without, turned around a recession, over 1 million jobs created in one year (even though there was a terrorist attack which cost 1.3 million jobs),
he-he, we'd never guess you were died-in-the-wook GWB supporter, that "script" feel too readily from your finger-tips :)
Remeber my much vaunted "archibald technique"? I think I'm inventing a new one called "Fleet technique" :) Name 3 BAD things GWB has done...... jsut to get a little objectivity into the discourse.

eh?, 9/11 cost 1.3M jobs ? How ??
Were these service jobs impacted by the fear at the time - coz if so it's real easy to then creat 1M. Service jobs are easy to turn on and off adn I dont' think they actualy reflect 'growth' -see the UK, we decimated our industries under Thatchers "privatism" and replaced allthose PRODCUTIVE jobs with service ones. Service jobs do not create national wealth - they only move paper between different columns of the spreadsheet !!

a one-quarter growth of 8.3%- the highest since 1984, [?QUOTE]
Well I DO have to point out it's annualised at 4 IIRC.
I just love when numebrs like THAT are quoted in one thread as if we are meant to take one sample as relevant and yet in other cases ( climate ) one sample is derided as irrelevant and the treend has to be included. Hypocrisy is bad. So which does GWB supporter like it to be - trends and admit climate issues or single and admit climate issues :)
[QUOTE]having two tax cuts passed (unlike Clinton who promised a tax cut then raised them).
yeah, sucks when politicians dont' hold to their promises. The problem with having 2 flavours of right wing parties to pick from :)
A pretty good record I would say. I doubt Gore or Kerry could have done half as much.
Possibly and possibly they woudln't have seen the $ DEVALUED by 20% !!
So an 8% growth makes the paper moving inside the US seem bigger but in reality in terms of it's value in the WORLD ECONOMY, it just DROPPED by 13.6% !! Not such a good record whn you actually think about macro economics. If you believe otherwise it's because you've been getting an over-simplified version of world economics played to you by the media you read.
In fact, if one of those two guys were President, Saddam would still be killing people as you're reading this (and his two evil sons, too).
AND why do you say that ?
Because FOX said so, because GWB supporters said so ?
What about deficit ? illiteracy ? health care ? Senior care ? all the social programs GWB will never fund effectively ??
What about corporate greed and runaway power ???
Saddam had stopped killing large numbers of people a long time ago and while the UN were in doing inspections it was hard to continue his previous pograms. The man was eveil and woudl have been removed from power once his own power base coudl no longer support him. BUT we were never given the chance to allow the International Laws to address the issue.
It is a poor reflection on your humnanity that you think the ONLY way he coudl be stopped was by a war. OR was their another reason for having a war ?? Fear ? Military weapons production ? Restructuring projects ? For every example you wish to give there are a dozen others on the opposite side. Bwing factual rather than speculative is best in these case. You cannot prove Saddam woudl still be in power. So by your own 'rules' you shoudln't accept that he woudl be !!!!! :)
He

jcp123

02-24-2005, 04:56 PM

Fleet 500

02-24-2005, 09:19 PM

My biggest beefs with Bush: a lot of freakin spending (arguably necessary, but still a lot...), and that immigrant amnesty program he had a couple years ago. Other than that, I'm happy with him, and no, I don't regret voting for him.
I definitely agree with that. Unlike some people here who think otherwise, I don't blindly follow Bush or any other politician.
I think the border should be closed and recent immigrants who are here sorted out so we know who is who. Who knows how many potential terrorists are lurking in the streets?
I also think only a certain amount of immigrants should be allowed in the U.S. every year, like Australia does (or used to do if they don't anymore).

Fleet 500

02-24-2005, 09:33 PM

he-he, we'd never guess you were died-in-the-wook GWB supporter, that "script" feel too readily from your finger-tips :)
Remeber my much vaunted "archibald technique"? I think I'm inventing a new one called "Fleet technique" :) Name 3 BAD things GWB has done...... jsut to get a little objectivity into the discourse.

eh?, 9/11 cost 1.3M jobs ? How ??
a one-quarter growth of 8.3%- the highest since 1984, [?QUOTE]
Well I DO have to point out it's annualised at 4 IIRC.

yeah, sucks when politicians dont' hold to their promises. The problem with having 2 flavours of right wing parties to pick from :)

AND why do you say that ?
Because FOX said so, because GWB supporters said so ?
What about deficit ? illiteracy ? health care ? Senior care ? all the social programs GWB will never fund effectively ??

Saddam had stopped killing large numbers of people a long time ago and while the UN were in doing inspections it was hard to continue his previous pograms. The man was eveil and woudl have been removed from power once his own power base coudl no longer support him. BUT we were never given the chance to allow the International Laws to address the issue.
You cannot prove Saddam woudl still be in power. So by your own 'rules' you shoudln't accept that he woudl be !!!!! :)
He
I am not a died-in-the-wool Bush supporter as my post to jcp123 shows.
Let's see... 3 bad things GWB has done...
- Favors "amnesty" for illegal aliens.
- Listened to Colin Powell who wanted him to go through the U.N. before invading Iraq, which proved to be a waste of time because France would never have voted "yes."
- Did not close the border right after 9/11.

Now, you name 3 good things Bush has done- and I'll be glad to help if you need it. :D

The 1.3 million jobs lost were directly and indirectly. Many businesses were in the two World Trade Center towers. The airlines laid off many people because people were flying less. It should be easy to get info on job losses related to 9/11.

Yes, annualized it was 4%, which is very good and better than when Bush began his first term.

GWB kept his campaign promises... Clinton broke practically every one he made- starting even before he was sworn in.

Would you get off the Fox thing? It's time to accept that they report the news just like CNN, CBS, etc. (And I'm talking about their actual news reports, not the opinion shows). The same thing was said about Reagan cutting social services. IIRC, there was no significant change.

What are you talking about? Saddam was still killing (his own) people before it was stopped (by invading and removing him).

Of course Saddam would still be in power if Gore or Kerry were in office. They are liberal pacifists.

spi-ti-tout

02-25-2005, 05:50 AM

I did. And it is full of inaccuries. Obviously, many people have no idea what they are talking about.

Myth- Joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
Fact- Received an honorable discharge (as 2nd Lt.). Recently released his full military record (which Kerry has not)- no AWOL on record. This same record shows that he did make up hours for time he missed- in fact he put in slightly more than necessary.
What the hell is AWOL???

Myth- Set the record for vacations.
Fact- Practically all of them are working vacations. And, speaking of records, Clinton set the record for largest presidential entourage. His visit to China in June, 1998 involved an entourage of 1,200 people. They included 200 secret service agents, 150 military personnel, 30 senior delegates, 375 reporters, 4 TV crews, 150 support staff and 70 senior advisers. In comparison, when Nixon visited China in 1972, he was accompanied by only 300 people.
Working Vacations? On what basis? I think it's better to save a little money and be up-to-date with the current situation in your own nation then go and play golf while looking at your laptop, as well as waste peoples time, don't you?

I never even said a word about Clinton and there you come along ranting on and on about some BS visit to China and what not. Stick to the topic.

Myth- In the state of the Union Address, he lied about reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed Britain.
Fact- He went by information supplied to him. Going by info you are given is not "lying." The supposed Uranium headed toward Iraq WAS from faulty British intelligence.
That is about the dumbest remark I have had to face from you. We all know that it was US who was activley involved into fishing out WMD's from Iraq before they asked Britain to join them. And besides, even is this did happen, it just proves what a fool Bush is. America is 5X more advanced in technology than the UK and has more space, asking Britain to find info for them would be a waste of time as results would not be as 'accurate'. Was Bush too lazy to send his sattelites over to Iraq?

Myth- In my first year in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
Fact- The 9/11 attacks caused a loss of 1.3 million jobs, much of the other job loses were from the recession which Bush inherited. In the last 18 or so months, jobs have increased every month. Claiming the trend is continuing every month is an outright lie.
So you have the offical figures for this?

Myth- I have presided over the highest gasoline prices in history.
Fact- Of which a president has little control over. Besides, I thought Bush had Iraq invaded to "take over their oil." When does that happend? I'm still waiting!
Ha, second dumbest remark. Wake up! Look, if you were the Principal of a nursery school, and the chairs were thrown down by little children after the last bell rang in your presence, would you not tell those children not to throw down the chairs and claim that you had little control over them?

Why do you think a head is ever elected? To take care of things! If he can't, he shouldn't be there.

Oh yes, and then you bring up this topic of US wanting oil from Iraq. Did you ever see me telling you that US wanted oil from Iraq? Unless you have no points to prove and are purpously going off-topic, I see no need to argue things with me that I have not said.

Myth- I am the first president in history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and a military invasion of a sovereign nation.
Fact- What? A sovereign nation with a brutal, murerous dictator would be more accurate. Bush resumed military action because Iraq had broken the cease-fire agreement (many times) and broke 17 U.N. resolutions. Clinton ordered bombings in several countries during his terms without U.N. or Congressional approval.
The fact still continues that he did it without the approval of the U.N, 17 resolutions or no 17 resolutions.

Comparing Bush with Clinton-
Clinton knew about Saddam's evil regime and took no effective action to stop it. He appeased a dangerous dictator and America (and the world) paid dearly for his neglect to face terrorism.
Bush, on the other hand, has shown courage and strength against terrorism/the Iraqi regime.

People like you are criticizing the wrong president!
Goddamit! Will you f***king stop saying Clinton this and Clinton that and US and Iraq this and US and Iraw that? Because its getting very annoying to me. Find someone who cares about Bush and Clinton will you?

Matra et Alpine

02-25-2005, 07:34 AM

I also think only a certain amount of immigrants should be allowed in the U.S. every year, like Australia does (or used to do if they don't anymore).
The UK's looking to do the same.

It is crazy that anyoen shoudl "expect" a country to accept everyoen who wants to go there. it was fine in America 200 year ago when it was despertate for peple to expand and work to increas the national wealth. It's crazy when it's the UK and that some areas have >15% unempolyment. As the American economy slows down it can't a absorb as easily as it did in the past.
Agree Fleet

Matra et Alpine

02-25-2005, 08:03 AM

I am not a died-in-the-wool Bush supporter as my post to jcp123 shows.
Let's see... 3 bad things GWB has done...
- Favors "amnesty" for illegal aliens.
- Listened to Colin Powell who wanted him to go through the U.N. before invading Iraq, which proved to be a waste of time because France would never have voted "yes."
Sneaking "analsysis" in proves you didnt' get the point fo the exercise.
That shows typical "redbeck Amercan" comments on France.
IF it follwoe dlegal process it woudl ahve ben FULLY supported by Franc.e
You need to stop listening to the neo-conservatists who have painted France as enemy-bad-boy, now that they have "islamist fundamntalist terrorist" they can lay off the Frence to scare the kiddies at bed time.
- Did not close the border right after 9/11.
he ? What woudl closing the border have done ?
I've not seen any major terrorist attacks or anything even remotely so - MOST of the "terrorist cells" closed down in the homeland securities debalce have seince been shown to be dubious !! Thank you for returning the illegally detained British citizens GWB !!
Now, you name 3 good things Bush has done- and I'll be glad to help if you need it. :D
Well you never quite managed it or got the point of doign it.
But to be honest I struggle to consider 3 plus things as a leader of a world nation. His international stage is litteed with neg, so I will focus on the national. He united a country ( for all the wrong reason tho' ). He tried to regain the spirit of exploration through an advance space program ( but no sign of follow thorough - or is it reported IN the US and we're jsut not seeing it? ). Man, can;'t get a third - but that's because I can't look at tax decrease figures and say if it affected the PEOPLE it needed to - so hard to say. AND THAT WAS THE POINT, in asking you to do it. By getting peopel to consider the other side of the fence it is enlightening. Either that or GWB really IS bad ( I'll leave that for American Democrat's to further comment on tho; )
The 1.3 million jobs lost were directly and indirectly. Many businesses were in the two World Trade Center towers. The airlines laid off many people because people were flying less. It should be easy to get info on job losses related to 9/11.
and people wre flying less because you had NO security on flights before then unliek every OTHER airport in the civilised world and the media was creating a frenzy if fear. THAT coudl have been avoided with good leadership. For example, in Britain when the IRA bombed train stations and pubs we didnt' stop going OUT. What we did was became a little more vigilant but alos realised that not EVREYONE was in danger all the time. "Stoci" is the term for it :) Yes it may be the British nature, but it is certainly in the actions of our leaders over the years too. Hysteria gripped the US and SHOUDL have been controlled better. ( Except "fear" is what neo-conservatists NEED in a nation to control it )
Yes, annualized it was 4%, which is very good and better than when Bush began his first term.
ahem, 'good' ? Did you stop reading about the DEVALUATION of the dollar ??
THAT is bad. But may I suggest doesn't matter to most Americans as the concept of world economics is never discussed or taught. Exchange variation like that meant that all the electronics brought in from abroad were 20% MORE EXPENSIVE. Fine, the exports are equally increased but he balance of payments in the US is running at high.
http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/img/ustrade.gif
Does THIS get reported and discussedd on the media you follow ?
I'll bet like the national debt it gets glossed over.
BOTH these are time bombs in the economy and successive governments are bad at trying to hide it :(
So a 20% devaluation increased the ReAL value of that by $10BILLION !!
So $10 billion dollars was "lost" due to the devaluation and how does that compare with the so-called 4% "gain" ??
[QUOTE]GWB kept his campaign promises... Clinton broke practically every one he made- starting even before he was sworn in.
If I asked a staunch Republican, coudl THEY say exactly the oppisite of that and be self-justified ? I suspect yes, beacuse few modern day politicians keep their campaign promises in the same way as everyoen thought was intended :(
Would you get off the Fox thing? It's time to accept that they report the news just like CNN, CBS, etc. (And I'm talking about their actual news reports, not the opinion shows). The same thing was said about Reagan cutting social services. IIRC, there was no significant change.
I't sjust that you keep making statmens as if they were facts and actually SOUND liek a FOX presenter. eg bad French, definitve statment on future event, bias :(
What are you talking about? Saddam was still killing (his own) people before it was stopped (by invading and removing him).
He was NOT executing mass-murder as he had done 10 years before.
Did the media reports you were getting the info from explain WHEN the murders were ? I remember seeing a CNN feed "live" in the "killing fields" and talking about 300,00 bodies and NOT making it clear these were NOT in recent times. ( Mind you ANY is bad )
How many DOES it take before action shoudl be taken - after all GWB killed more Texans on death row than enyone else :(
NOT defending Saddam, BUT there are many OTHER ways to handle those issues.
Of course Saddam would still be in power if Gore or Kerry were in office. They are liberal pacifists.
You really DO sound more REDNECK every day.
I hope it gets better for you.
You are using typical fascist terms for those who have opposing solutions.
By creating the "scary monster under the bed" you make everyone afraid and they are too scared to do anything except what their leader tells them. You should read some neo-conservatist "exposee" articles ( I'm sure you'll rightfully take some of it with a picnh of salt ) BUT some of it can ring true - sadly :(
With a "pacifist" - nothing WRONG with wanting peace - and "liberal" - nothing WRONG with being open to new ideas and refor - then it's quite possibel the UN resuolutions woudl have been followed through and IF it was necessary that a coalition of 112 countries woudl lead an army in to Iraq. THEY woudln't be seen as invasion, THEY would have garnered more support from the majority of Iraqi's and mayeb we'd see a peacfeful solution worked out with the UN peace-keeprs present. See what can happen when you turn the light on and realis there ISN'T a bogyman in the shadows ????

henk4

02-25-2005, 08:27 AM

It is may be strange but I do get the impression that Fleet majored neither in Macro-economics nor in public finance :D

forza_autodelta

02-25-2005, 10:11 AM

cool "matra" you're a good speaker on Internet and your English is easy.cheers

Fleet 500

02-25-2005, 01:15 PM

What the hell is AWOL???

I never even said a word about Clinton and there you come along ranting on and on about some BS visit to China and what not. Stick to the topic.

That is about the dumbest remark I have had to face from you. We all know that it was US who was activley involved into fishing out WMD's from Iraq before they asked Britain to join them. And besides, even is this did happen, it just proves what a fool Bush is. America is 5X more advanced in technology than the UK and has more space, asking Britain to find info for them would be a waste of time as results would not be as 'accurate'. Was Bush too lazy to send his sattelites over to Iraq?

So you have the offical figures for this?

The fact still continues that he did it without the approval of the U.N, 17 resolutions or no 17 resolutions.

Goddamit! Will you f***king stop saying Clinton this and Clinton that and US and Iraq this and US and Iraw that? Because its getting very annoying to me. Find someone who cares about Bush and Clinton will you?
AWOL is "Absent Without Leave."

Clinton's visit to China was not directed toward you (and it's not "bs," it really happened).

Iraq kicked out weapons inspectors before they could complete their search. Also, during an intercepted telephone call, two Iraqi officials were heard saying to each other, "It's so easy to fool those weapons inspectors." Meaning they of course were hiding whatever weapons they didn't want found.

The loss of 1.3 million jobs due to 9/11 is the quoted figure I heard on TV and radio before the 2004 Presidential election. If you don't think that figure is accurate, then what is the actual number?

Bush did go through the U.N. to get approval. Don't you remember that? It Colin Powell who suggested it. Then it was found out that France would not have given it's approval no matter what, so why do you keep insisting that Bush didn't have U.N. approval? He never would have got it (because of France (and Germany).
Did you criticize Clinton when he ordered several countries bombed without U.N. or Congressional approval? And, he ordered those bombings to divert attention away from his many scandals. When he was due to testify or was in court, he ordered bombings to happen on the same day so the news would be covering that story more than Clinton's crimes.

If you don't care about Bush and Clinton, don't read this! Simple as that.

Fleet 500

02-25-2005, 01:39 PM

You need to stop listening to the neo-conservatists who have painted France as enemy-bad-boy,

he ? What woudl closing the border have done ?
I've not seen any major terrorist attacks or anything even remotely so - MOST of the "terrorist cells" closed down in the homeland securities debalce have seince been shown to be dubious !! Thank you for returning the illegally detained British citizens GWB !!

Either that or GWB really IS bad

and people wre flying less because you had NO security on flights before then unliek every OTHER airport in the civilised world and the media was creating a frenzy if fear. THAT coudl have been avoided with good leadership. For example, in Britain when the IRA bombed train stations and pubs we didnt' stop going OUT. What we did was became a little more vigilant but alos realised that not EVREYONE was in danger all the time.

ahem, 'good' ? Did you stop reading about the DEVALUATION of the dollar ??
THAT is bad. But may I suggest doesn't matter to most Americans as the concept of world economics is never discussed or taught. Exchange variation like that meant that all the electronics brought in from abroad were 20% MORE EXPENSIVE. Fine, the exports are equally increased but he balance of payments in the US is running at high.

Does THIS get reported and discussedd on the media you follow ?
I'll bet like the national debt it gets glossed over.
BOTH these are time bombs in the economy and successive governments are bad at trying to hide it :(
[QUOTE]So a 20% devaluation increased the ReAL value of that by $10BILLION !!
So $10 billion dollars was "lost" due to the devaluation and how does that compare with the so-called 4% "gain" ??

I't sjust that you keep making statmens as if they were facts and actually SOUND liek a FOX presenter. eg bad French, definitve statment on future event, bias :(

He was NOT executing mass-murder as he had done 10 years before.
Did the media reports you were getting the info from explain WHEN the murders were ? I remember seeing a CNN feed "live" in the "killing fields" and talking about 300,00 bodies and NOT making it clear these were NOT in recent times. ( Mind you ANY is bad )
How many DOES it take before action shoudl be taken - after all GWB killed more Texans on death row than enyone else :(
NOT defending Saddam, BUT there are many OTHER ways to handle those issues.

With a "pacifist" - nothing WRONG with wanting peace - and "liberal" - nothing WRONG with being open to new ideas and refor -
I Believe that France is no longer an ally of the U.S. because that country puts profit above world security.

Obviously, closing the borders right after 9/11 would have prevented more terrorists from sneaking in. Yes, there haven't been any major terrorist attacks- thanks to the Bush adminstration seriously damaging terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and the Taliban.

"Bad" is selling nuclear secrets to China and giving nuclear material to North Korea supposedly for power; now we know they used it for weapons (actually, that last one would fall under the category of "stupid," not "bad"). And we all know which president bid that, don't we?

There has always been some security on flights, just not enough. We, too, didn't stop flying and have also become more vigilant.

The devalutions is because of several factors. A trade deficit with China (I don't know the latest figures but China is exporting much more to the U.S. than it is importing from the U.S. Also, there is the NAFTA and GATT treaties, in which the U.S. got the short end of the stick (and were passed by Clinton).

What statements that are facts have I made?

Saddam (and his sons were still torturing and killing recently). His sons were still using the rape rooms and putting people in grinding machines.

Simple question: Do you think Saddam would still be in power today if Gore or Kerry were President?

Fleet 500

02-25-2005, 01:52 PM

He united a country ( for all the wrong reason tho' ).
Man, can;'t get a third - but that's because I can't look at tax decrease figures and say if it affected the PEOPLE it needed to - so hard to say.

Hysteria gripped the US and SHOUDL have been controlled better. ( Except "fear" is what neo-conservatists NEED in a nation to control it )

How many DOES it take before action shoudl be taken - after all GWB killed more Texans on death row than enyone else :(
He united a country "for all the wrong reason." What? Fighting (international) terrorism is wrong?

The tax decrease did affect the people it needed to- anyone who paid taxes got a tax cut.

There was no "hysteria" in the U.S. after 9/11. People still kept going out to the movies, restaurants, malls and even though there was a decrease in flights, many, many people were still flying. One of my brothers flew to Chicago from L.A. in Dec., 2001.

Not "killed more Texans on death row," "Had convited murderers executed." And, so what? It's called justice (and punishment). You commit murder and you may pay with your life. If anything, I think he should have executed more convicted murderers. I would have (and so would the approximately 60-70% of Americans who favor the death penalty). No need for you to put a sad face- the criminals were punished. I would think you would have more sympathy for the victim's families than the murderers. You sound like a true leftist!

Fleet 500

02-25-2005, 01:54 PM

It is may be strange but I do get the impression that Fleet majored neither in Macro-economics nor in public finance :D
My major is Conservatism and common-sense.
What are yours?

Matra et Alpine

02-25-2005, 03:03 PM

Clinton's visit to China was not directed toward you (and it's not "bs," it really happened).
Perhaps CLinton took more advisers so he actually got som ework done rather than Nixon's PR exercise ?
Maybe it reflected the world was a more dangerous place for US presidents so it needed more planning and protection ?
MAYBE it was because he travelled more wediley than Nixon was allowed to ?
All valid reason, but dont' fit into bash-democrat-box so get ignored for consideration :)
PS: I ond't KNOW that it's either of those, but I doubt anyoen involved in this discussion does either !!
Iraq kicked out weapons inspectors before they could complete their search.
WTF ?
erm, you've a MAJOR problem with facts !!!!!
The UN pulled the inspectors out when GWB said, time up we're going to bomb the hell out of them !!!!
WHERE are you getting this BS you are spouting on here ????
Please take the time to read the timeline from the Guardian paper - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html
Also, during an intercepted telephone call, two Iraqi officials were heard saying to each other, "It's so easy to fool those weapons inspectors." Meaning they of course were hiding whatever weapons they didn't want found.
SUGGESTING that, NOT MEANING IT.
If all those "murderers" that GWB executed were judged using similar circumstancial evidence then it was murder of them !!
Also, Saddam had made it clear that he DID want to confoudn the inspectors and intelligence services.
Thsi was pointed out in the intellignece reports that Bush and Blair were using to decide to go to war. Their advisors were SAYING they belived some of the "chat" was made up to cause confusion.
But in your mind ( and thos of GWB blind-fath-followers ) we all knwo that truth, fact, fiction and reasoning are slim-pickings :(
The loss of 1.3 million jobs due to 9/11 is the quoted figure I heard on TV and radio before the 2004 Presidential election. If you don't think that figure is accurate, then what is the actual number?
Don't know, I didn't cite it.
YOU did, so you should prove it.
Especially as so far the holes are getting bigger in all the stories being posted so far.
Bush did go through the U.N. to get approval. Don't you remember that? It Colin Powell who suggested it. Then it was found out that France would not have given it's approval no matter what, so why do you keep insisting that Bush didn't have U.N. approval? He never would have got it (because of France (and Germany).
Go read abotu it..,
WHAT France said they would veto was goign to war without completino of the previosu UN resolution. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,910080,00.html That was all about th eUS-led idea that old resolutions let them declare war. They didnt'. France had the courage to stand UP for truth, honesty and International Law.
Did you criticize Clinton when he ordered several countries bombed without U.N. or Congressional approval? And, he ordered those bombings to divert attention away from his many scandals. When he was due to testify or was in court, he ordered bombings to happen on the same day so the news would be covering that story more than Clinton's crimes.
Actuallu YES.
See the problem YOU have is you can only grasp the world in the indoctrinated repulican mindset.
The world isn't like that.
Truth, honesty and legaity are NOT defined by the party a leader belongfs to, they are defined by the ACTIONS of the leader and the people.
You clearly have difficulty seperating them.
I'm coming to realise THAT is probably the closest definintion of REDNECK out there :)

If you don't care about Bush and Clinton, don't read this! Simple as that.
As citizens of the world we ahve the right to care abotu the actions of ANY world leader who takes it upon themselves to disobey International Law, be it Saddam or Bush !!!

Fleet 500

02-25-2005, 03:56 PM

Perhaps CLinton took more advisers so he actually got som ework done rather than Nixon's PR exercise ?
Maybe it reflected the world was a more dangerous place for US presidents so it needed more planning and protection ?
MAYBE it was because he travelled more wediley than Nixon was allowed to ?
All valid reason, but dont' fit into bash-democrat-box so get ignored for consideration :)
PS: I ond't KNOW that it's either of those, but I doubt anyoen involved in this discussion does either !!

WTF ?
erm, you've a MAJOR problem with facts !!!!!
The UN pulled the inspectors out when GWB said, time up we're going to bomb the hell out of them !!!!

SUGGESTING that, NOT MEANING IT.
If all those "murderers" that GWB executed were judged using similar circumstancial evidence then it was murder of them !!
Also, Saddam had made it clear that he DID want to confoudn the inspectors and intelligence services.
Thsi was pointed out in the intellignece reports that Bush and Blair were using to decide to go to war. Their advisors were SAYING they belived some of the "chat" was made up to cause confusion.

Go read abotu it..,
WHAT France said they would veto was goign to war without completino of the previosu UN resolution. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,910080,00.html That was all about th eUS-led idea that old resolutions let them declare war. They didnt'. France had the courage to stand UP for truth, honesty and International Law.

As citizens of the world we ahve the right to care abotu the actions of ANY world leader who takes it upon themselves to disobey International Law, be it Saddam or Bush !!!
Why are you replying to my answers to spi-ti-out? :confused:
Stop trying to defend Clinton. Bush is in Europe and I would say it's a good bet that he didn't take anywhere near the amount of people Clinton did. I mean, was it really necessary for Clinton to have 375 reporters or 150 support staff?

You are spinning more than a top! The U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998.

What you fail to realize is that it was up to Saddam to prove that he had no WMD, not for Bush (and the inspectors) to prove he did.

Why do you put "murderers" in quotations? They were legally tried and found guilty.

France had "courage?" Lol. That's the funniest thing I've heard so far this year! They were selling war materials for oil and you know that very well.

We've gone through this before... by breaking all of those (17) resolutons, it was only a matter of time before Iraq would have been invaded. It would have happened in the '90s if we had a U.S. President who wasn't afraid of hurting his popularity ratings. Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement and what is the opposite of "cease-fire?" Resume firing, of course.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-25-2005, 04:19 PM

Why are you replying to my answers to spi-ti-out? :confused:
Stop trying to defend Clinton. Bush is in Europe and I would say it's a good bet that he didn't take anywhere near the amount of people Clinton did. I mean, was it really necessary for Clinton to have 375 reporters or 150 support staff?

Perhaps not, but it might have not been necessary to go over there in the first place because of the good relations he kept with Europe and the rest of the world, rather than having to invite himself over.

You are spinning more than a top! The U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998.

and allowed to return to make their inspections before the war,which the U.S. did not really allow to go ahead properly.

What you fail to realize is that it was up to Saddam to prove that he had no WMD, not for Bush (and the inspectors) to prove he did.

It was up to the Inspectors to make their decision, it was NOT up to Bush to prove his opinion right by going in and finding.......nothing. funny that.

Why do you put "murderers" in quotations? They were legally tried and found guilty.

France had "courage?" Lol. That's the funniest thing I've heard so far this year! They were selling war materials for oil and you know that very well.

France stood up for the power of the United Nations because it believes in it's power to solve these types of Conflicts, it's only when one country doesn't allow the right political process to go ahead that problems arise.

We've gone through this before... by breaking all of those (17) resolutons, it was only a matter of time before Iraq would have been invaded. It would have happened in the '90s if we had a U.S. President who wasn't afraid of hurting his popularity ratings. Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement and what is the opposite of "cease-fire?" Resume firing, of course.

If it was really a matter of time, would it not have been better to deal with the situation the FIRST time around, ie get rid of Saddam in GW1, rather than try and create a civil uprising that would see many thousands of Killed?

I'll agree they broke resolutions by kicking out the inspectors, but they were happy to have them back when they felt they were about to be invaded illegally.

FaeLLe

02-25-2005, 04:54 PM

Hi,

Last year I bought a Chevorlet Lumina SS 2004 its mostly unheard of however it packs a huge V8 5.7L and can whoop a M3.

http://www.geocities.com/zack20002/ss.jpg

Thats my lovely car and only image i have of it. Modded it a bit since then to have dark tints and 9700K xenon lights which ends up blinding everyone ahead of me.

More info about the car can be found at
http://www.chevroletarabia.com/ (http://www.chevroletarabia.com/content_data/LAAM/AE/en/GBPAE/chevrolet/models/lumina_coupe/lumina_overview.htm)

Another really cool modded 12500 Corvette i came across can be viewed at http://www.FaeLLe.com/2005/02/1200-hp-corvette.html (http://vikram.blogspot.com/2005/02/1200-hp-corvette.html)

Peace,

- FaeLLe
www.FaeLLe.com

IBrake4Rainbows

02-25-2005, 04:56 PM

Thats actually an Australian car, but nice choice!

Matra et Alpine

02-25-2005, 05:15 PM

Why are you replying to my answers to spi-ti-out? :confused:
Because you're spouting mistruths as tarted up facts :) perhaps ?? :)
Stop trying to defend Clinton. Bush is in Europe and I would say it's a good bet that he didn't take anywhere near the amount of people Clinton did. I mean, was it really necessary for Clinton to have 375 reporters or 150 support staff?
I woudln't be so sure, there was as big stink over GWB's vuisits to the UK as he demanded that he had his own security staff adn would NOT realy on British SAS, police and security - AND the American's had to be armed ( the BIG issue over it )
So I suspect you havebt;' actually got a CLUE on the comparison, but it's fun watching you make up facts :)
You are spinning more than a top! The U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked out in 1998.
You need to read more.
He did NOT throught them out. What he DID do was stopped co-operating.
So the UN withdrew them until it coudl be resolved. Which it was and they were allowed back in !!!
IF you had bothered your sorry little peanut brain to read the Guardian link I'd given you you woudl be beteter informed thatn the rubbish you're spouting now !!
What you fail to realize is that it was up to Saddam to prove that he had no WMD, not for Bush (and the inspectors) to prove he did.
Again out of the mouths of idiots comes nonsenes.
LET ME TELL IT TO YOU AGAIN>
Under recognised laws that underpin all the cizvilised world it is the role of the prosecution to prove beyond reaonbale doubt that a person is guilty. It is NOT required of a person to PROVE their innocence. For someone who will claim the rights of the American constituion adn the words of the founding fathers, it astounds me that you ignore a FUNDAMENTAL TENET underpinning it !!!
Can you explain that ? Beyond bigotry ??
Why do you put "murderers" in quotations? They were legally tried and found guilty.
Still too thick to think for yourself, so AGAIN I'll walk you through the obvious relationship presented and why "murderer" was in quotes. Were the foudn guilty based on "proof of guilt" or by insinuation and hearsay and unable to prove their innocence ? If the former then they were rightfully executed under the barbaric American legal system. If the latter then it was murder of those individuals by the barbaric ILLEGAL American legel system.
So in once case they were not actually "murderers" were they.
That is actually clear if you read without the rose-tinted glasses :)
Just as Saddam no longer had WMDs !!!
France had "courage?" Lol. That's the funniest thing I've heard so far this year! They were selling war materials for oil and you know that very well.
erm, so was the US.
It's really funny just now in the UK we've had speeches from Americna politicians upset that Eureop is selling arms to China. Funny, the US didnt' ahve problmes doing it before. In reality, the European arms manufacturers were offering China BETTER products and the only chance the US defense industry has to prevent others making better porfits is to try to apply political pressure. AGAIN, America acts in an underhand and double-standard way !!
So you guys sold wapons for moeny, why can't someone else ?
Oh I KNOW, one laww fro GWB's friends and companies and anotehr for the American people and other nations !!
Wanna come back on that ????
BTW, you need to look up "courage" and understand the word a little better too. Sometimes it takes more courage to do the RIGHT thing than it does to do the easy one :(
We've gone through this before... by breaking all of those (17) resolutons, it was only a matter of time before Iraq would have been invaded. It would have happened in the '90s if we had a U.S. President who wasn't afraid of hurting his popularity ratings. Saddam broke the cease-fire agreement and what is the opposite of "cease-fire?" Resume firing, of course.
You're STILL refusing to spend the time to read the ACTUAL resolutions arent' you.
You've been sppon fed a biased summary adn believe it as fact.
YOU ARE 100% WRONG.
EVERY other nation and most of the people on the planet know it !!
So you are GUILTY of lying until YOU CAN PRIVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that what you say on the UN resolution is true. Go on try it. Find out how THAT way of applying legal case isn't workable. Maybe THEN you'll get a grasp of the situation and be able to contribute somethign useful to the debate

Matra et Alpine

02-25-2005, 05:21 PM

Last year I bought a Chevorlet Lumina SS 2004 its mostly unheard of however it packs a huge V8 5.7L and can whoop a M3.
Got some numbers for that ?
Stock both cars or just the modded one v stock M3 ? Or BOTH modded ??
0-60 and 1/4 mile or track/sprint/autotest/rally ( coz I can assure you you wont touch an M3 rally car :) )

IBrake4Rainbows

02-25-2005, 05:26 PM

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Neither side is willing to give up their point of view, so i fail to see how lowering yourself to calling each other names is the right way to end this discussion, or even to continue it.

What you've both fallen into is taking the other's posts as facts, it's an opinion based forum, hence opinion is in reality all you have, and the facts can be made to support those opinions, or ommited.

Fleet, this argument has been great, you've given a new perspective on things, and even if i don't agree with your views sometimes, i respect them.

Same goes for Matra, i've always trusted his opinion. and his views come from experiance i don't have.

Either we agree to disagree or this thread goes circular, and we repeat the same sentiments until we're blue in the face, surely 28 or so pages of Hijacking is enough? :p.

Matra et Alpine

02-25-2005, 05:33 PM

Either we agree to disagree or this thread goes circular, and we repeat the same sentiments until we're blue in the face, surely 28 or so pages of Hijacking is enough? :p.
Have tried 4 occasoins to make it about cars :)

IBrake4Rainbows

02-25-2005, 05:44 PM

Well what we need to do is stick to that. My Favourite American Car is the Chrysler Airflow. It reminds me of the Chrysler building in New York and that is my favourite bit of Architecture in world.

RS6

02-25-2005, 05:49 PM

Well what we need to do is stick to that. My Favourite American Car is the Chrysler Airflow. It reminds me of the Chrysler building in New York and that is my favourite bit of Architecture in world.

Ah, the Airflow, one of my favourite american cars. I must admit I have a thing for 30s and 40s American cars.

crisis

02-25-2005, 06:36 PM

he has the lowest iq out of the past 10-15 presidents......its a bit less then average. iq doesnt mean everything........but it does mean quite a bit.
(its like 85-90 if i remember correctly)
EDIT: looked it up, 91. lowest of the past bunch of republicans, and democrats.
It is a little pointless arguing Bush's or any presidents IQ when he makes no decision without consulting a mass of advisors. He is a figurehead and as such bares the brunt of criticism and admiration but the decisions he is een to make are made for him.

crisis

02-25-2005, 06:52 PM

Saddam had stopped killing large numbers of people a long time ago and while the UN were in doing inspections it was hard to continue his previous pograms. The man was eveil and woudl have been removed from power once his own power base coudl no longer support him. BUT we were never given the chance to allow the International Laws to address the issue.
Ten year between drinks Matra. The world was reluctant to push Saddam. He flouted the sanctions and deprived his people of health services and medicines. Then blamed the world for not letting money into his country to help his people while he busily built palaces. He refused weapons inspections and seemed to think that he was going to get away with whatever he wanted. The real problem was we never finished the job properly the first time which made this all very messy.

crisis

02-25-2005, 07:04 PM

I Believe that France is no longer an ally of the U.S. because that country puts profit above world security.
That sentence has so much scope I dont know where to start. Especially when Bush is over there now trying to make friends. I think his govenrment have realised they cant do as they please on an international level and that they have to be part of multilateral decisions if they want to be seen as good guys. The US is home of the profit so if anything France , by your defintion, should fit in fine. The world security you speak of is the US definition, not a dictionary one.

Obviously, closing the borders right after 9/11 would have prevented more terrorists from sneaking in. Yes, there haven't been any major terrorist attacks- thanks to the Bush adminstration seriously damaging terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and the Taliban.
closing borders wold probably not have mattered so much in the end given the amount of security measures the US and most countries now have in place. It is clear that terrorists find it impossible to conduct attacks anyhwere but in their own back yards now.

crisis

02-25-2005, 07:08 PM

Fleet 500

02-25-2005, 07:49 PM

If it was really a matter of time, would it not have been better to deal with the situation the FIRST time around, ie get rid of Saddam in GW1, rather than try and create a civil uprising that would see many thousands of Killed?

And this is why the U.N. is not effective. Unfortunately, Bush Sr. followed the U.N.'s suggestion during the first Gulf War- kick the Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait, but don't invade Iraq. I think Bush Sr. should have gone the whole way- invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power once and for all. But he chose to listen to the U.N.

(And why are you replying to a post directed to someone else? What is this... some kind of liberal gathering replying to a conservative poster?)

Fleet 500

02-25-2005, 07:53 PM

That sentence has so much scope I dont know where to start. Especially when Bush is over there now trying to make friends. I think his govenrment have realised they cant do as they please on an international level and that they have to be part of multilateral decisions if they want to be seen as good guys. The US is home of the profit so if anything France , by your defintion, should fit in fine. The world security you speak of is the US definition, not a dictionary one.

closing borders wold probably not have mattered so much in the end given the amount of security measures the US and most countries now have in place. It is clear that terrorists find it impossible to conduct attacks anyhwere but in their own back yards now.
Bush is trying to give the French another chance to come to their senses. I bet if some airplanes crashed into a few buildings in France, they would jump onboard in 2 seconds!

But the U.S. was not ignoring Iraqi sanctions (there were sanctions on Iraq before the invasion, I believe).

If just one terrorist crossed the border between 9/11 and the present, then it would have mattered.

Fleet 500

02-25-2005, 07:56 PM

It is a little pointless arguing Bush's or any presidents IQ when he makes no decision without consulting a mass of advisors. He is a figurehead and as such bares the brunt of criticism and admiration but the decisions he is een to make are made for him.
All U.S. presidents have advisors, but the final decision is up to the president.

Fleet 500

02-25-2005, 08:01 PM

IBrake4Rainbows

02-25-2005, 08:55 PM

And this is why the U.N. is not effective. Unfortunately, Bush Sr. followed the U.N.'s suggestion during the first Gulf War- kick the Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait, but don't invade Iraq. I think Bush Sr. should have gone the whole way- invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power once and for all. But he chose to listen to the U.N.

(And why are you replying to a post directed to someone else? What is this... some kind of liberal gathering replying to a conservative poster?)

I was replying to your posts, thats what the original "Posted by Fleet500" thing is.

and the UN is only as effective as it's member countries allow it to be, the American most certainly did not allow the UN to be effective at all, only just stopping short of cutting it off at the knees.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-25-2005, 08:58 PM

Bush is trying to give the French another chance to come to their senses. I bet if some airplanes crashed into a few buildings in France, they would jump onboard in 2 seconds!

what are you basing this opinion on? your general distate for the French, or Europeans in General? The French are a proud people, not unlike the U.S in that sense, and have a good sense of their position in the world, The French should not be considered as the ones who have done the wrong in this situation, THEY were following protocol. with an attitude like that GWB should of just stayed at home.

(and yes, i am responding to this particular part of your post, so don't get too confused)

IBrake4Rainbows

02-25-2005, 09:00 PM

Good points, but did you notice that Matra is the one who did the name-calling (and swearing)?

I am basing this on your comments as well, calling him something along the lines of a socialist John Kerry comes to mind.

We're all at fault, the differance between you and I is that I can admit it. :)

crisis

02-26-2005, 05:15 AM

All U.S. presidents have advisors, but the final decision is up to the president.
Yes but luckily the decision is not made by one man.

crisis

02-26-2005, 05:21 AM

Bush is trying to give the French another chance to come to their senses. I bet if some airplanes crashed into a few buildings in France, they would jump onboard in 2 seconds!
Bushes govenrment realise they are not able to force their opinionson the world without consequence. He is not giving france another chance. He is trying to get the US some credibilty with the rest of the world again.

If just one terrorist crossed the border between 9/11 and the present, then it would have mattered.
"terrorists" may be in the US now. What matters is if they can actually carry out any actions which it seems they cant as yet.

SlickHolden

02-26-2005, 08:06 AM

Hi,

Last year I bought a Chevorlet Lumina SS 2004 its mostly unheard of however it packs a huge V8 5.7L and can whoop a M3.

Thats my lovely car and only image i have of it. Modded it a bit since then to have dark tints and 9700K xenon lights which ends up blinding everyone ahead of me.

More info about the car can be found at
http://www.chevroletarabia.com/ (http://www.chevroletarabia.com/content_data/LAAM/AE/en/GBPAE/chevrolet/models/lumina_coupe/lumina_overview.htm)

Another really cool modded 12500 Corvette i came across can be viewed at http://www.FaeLLe.com/2005/02/1200-hp-corvette.html (http://vikram.blogspot.com/2005/02/1200-hp-corvette.html)

Peace,

- FaeLLe
www.FaeLLe.com
Looks like your wheels are 17" not 18" are they mate ?
Here have a look here best:D
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=1464
You should just or will soon have this model..
http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/modeloverview?modelid=4005

Matra et Alpine

02-26-2005, 08:17 AM

If just one terrorist crossed the border between 9/11 and the present, then it would have mattered.
Fleet, you have SO bought the BS of the government that you are REAL scarey :(

Look at the US analysis of the impact. it coudl NOT stop a terrorist.
It's as well saying that it worked because there asn't a terrorist attain in Beverley Hills - ther easnt' one before either. HOW did it make a difference ? AND if you're going to cite reports, PLEASE incldue the follow-ups where almost every "terrorist cell" broken up wasn't :( ( and we have to accept there is an uncertainty there, but the consitution gave every American the right to bear arms, so sayign they've got them ddoesn't count or all the NRA are terrorists adn shoudl be in Guantanamo :) )

let me cite you ONE example, I was flying in the US, had to take shoes off etc for the "security sweep". Did an internal flight and hten into the UK. FIRST baggage check in the UK and I'm pulled to the side for having scissors in my carry on luggage !!!!

There is LOOKING like secrity and theere is EFFECTIVE security. If a terroris really wanted to come in there are so many holes, you cannot seal a border the length of the US. So you need to look at EFFECTIVE measures, but effective measures dont' grab headlines :(

SlickHolden

02-26-2005, 08:32 AM

Can't stop the terrorits if you cant even have gun control.

CdocZ

02-26-2005, 10:01 AM

Can't stop the terrorits if you cant even have gun control.
dont think it woudl help much for the first few years, since they probably have so many guns already, and ammo is probably amazingly easy for them to get.

Matra et Alpine

02-26-2005, 11:57 AM

Seriously, can you tell me for sure that there is global warming (caused by man and not a natural process)?
Tell you waht.

Go read BP's views on it - http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=2011560&contentId=2016944
'In November 2003, BP Group Chief Executive, John Browne, set out our latest thinking. Our new target, he explained, reflects a growing scientific consensus: 'that to avoid serious impact upon societies or the environment, society should plan to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) at around 500-550 parts per million (ppm).'

So an oil company - not one of GWB's friends mind - came out and supported cliamte change as an issue and the Kyoto protocol !!
How many does it take for you to accept it ??????

BTW, BP own Amoco, it will be intersting to see of Amoco wil be as honest to the American consumers and government !!

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 12:29 PM

So an oil company - not one of GWB's friends mind - came out and supported cliamte change as an issue and the Kyoto protocol !!
How many does it take for you to accept it ??????

I want postive scientific proof the there is global warming which is a threat to the planet and that it is caused by man. And that if there was no man-made pollution/emissions that the earth world "cool" again.

Matra et Alpine

02-26-2005, 12:46 PM

I want postive scientific proof the there is global warming which is a threat to the planet and that it is caused by man. And that if there was no man-made pollution/emissions that the earth world "cool" again.
You're too closed minded to ever accept evidence unless it is the ACTUAL destruction of the planet.

I provide a link of an OIL COMPANY accepting the evidence.
You ignore it

Stupidity only explains so much !!

Go stick your head back in the sand :)

SlickHolden

02-26-2005, 12:56 PM

dont think it woudl help much for the first few years, since they probably have so many guns already, and ammo is probably amazingly easy for them to get.
You know what you don't need. In a time of war when everyone is looking out over there shoulders scared that the next door family could be god know's what, You don't need people with itchie trigger fingers and a endless amount of ammo. Something should have been done years ago on gun control really.

SlickHolden

02-26-2005, 12:59 PM

You're too closed minded to ever accept evidence unless it is the ACTUAL destruction of the planet.

I provide a link of an OIL COMPANY accepting the evidence.
You ignore it

Stupidity only explains so much !!

Go stick your head back in the sand :)
You meen like this lol:D
http://www.punchstock.com/image/corbis/2936153/comp/11542974.jpg

Matra et Alpine

02-26-2005, 01:01 PM

You meen like this lol:D
Straight talking Aussies rule :)

jcp123

02-26-2005, 01:29 PM

You're too closed minded to ever accept evidence unless it is the ACTUAL destruction of the planet.

I provide a link of an OIL COMPANY accepting the evidence.
You ignore it

Stupidity only explains so much !!

Go stick your head back in the sand :)

I did read an article in National Geographic once (!) that said that the current rise intemperatures follows a steady rise and decline of temperatures that has been occurring since the last ice age. So while I believe that global warming is a definite contributor, I also believe that part of it is due to a natural cycle that would occur with or without our 'assistance'.

Matra et Alpine

02-26-2005, 04:44 PM

I did read an article in National Geographic once (!) that said that the current rise intemperatures follows a steady rise and decline of temperatures that has been occurring since the last ice age. So while I believe that global warming is a definite contributor, I also believe that part of it is due to a natural cycle that would occur with or without our 'assistance'.
Definately, nobody argues that there are not natural cycles.
THAT would just be stupidity the equal of suggesting that our actions are not having an impact.
Howeer the evidence is SOLID that those cyc;es are accelerating and more extreme than before and MEASURABILITY impacting the environment.

jcp123

02-26-2005, 04:53 PM

That same article also mentioned that the rate at which the earth is heating up is not abnormal. The x-factor would be how long it continues, which they said PROBABLY will be longer because of greenhous gases humans put out. I really hope I can find that article for you guys - I don't deny the existence of a warming trend on the earth, but I do think that the media has made it into more of a doom-and-gloom thing than even environmental experts believe it to be.

Matra et Alpine

02-26-2005, 05:01 PM

That same article also mentioned that the rate at which the earth is heating up is not abnormal.
hmm, I'd be interested to know which date the publication was and ther authors.
taking a single year view, it's valid to make claims abotu it having warmed as qwuickly,. WHEN the trend over time is taken is when it starts. See some of the graphs we've already posted here.
I do think that the media has made it into more of a doom-and-gloom thing than even environmental experts believe it to be.
For sure, some media do that to get popularity in the ratings !!
BUT many objective reports and anlyses support the CONCERN.
AGain, check some of thelinks I've posted. The latest one is even an OIL company saying we have to control it - kind of cutting their own throat to save the planet :)
ALSO, some articles whi debunk some claism are correct in debunking the extreme ones. Like the "day after tomorrow" - scary movie - chances of it happening THAT sever are VERY VERY VERY slim. There have been articles published presenting a much calmer view of the future - and more realistic. Does that measn that DAT will NEVER happen - sadly no, there IS a risk and we shoudl try to prevent it. Just as we had movies about comets hitting the earth. NASA and ESA spend LOTS of money tracking and looking for incoming comets. Just because Deep Impact ( a movie I'm in BTW :) ) showed the damage didnt' mean they shoudl stop looking because teh chances are slim. That woudl be liek driving witout insurance because you didn't have an accident yesterday :)

jcp123

02-26-2005, 05:05 PM

It was a late 90's article IIRC.

Hot damn, I think you and I are actually agreeing on something!! That's twice I've agreed with someone politically on here in the last week that I don't normally. What's happening?!? :rolleyes:

Coventrysucks

02-26-2005, 05:16 PM

I bet if some airplanes crashed into a few buildings in France, they would jump onboard in 2 seconds!

This is a ridiculous statement.

Yes. Of course they would have "jumped aboard" just like Spain did.

Oh, wait a second, a terrorist attack on Spain actually contributed to their withdrawal of support for the "war on terror".

I want postive scientific proof the there is global warming which is a threat to the planet and that it is caused by man. And that if there was no man-made pollution/emissions that the earth world "cool" again.

Remind me again:
Exactly how many degrees did the average global temperature drop when all the 'planes were grounded after 11/9?

There were fewer man-made emmissions, because the 'planes were not flying, and the Earth cooled.

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 05:34 PM

This is a ridiculous statement.

Yes. Of course they would have "jumped aboard" just like Spain did.

Oh, wait a second, a terrorist attack on Spain actually contributed to their withdrawal of support for the "war on terror".

Remind me again:
Exactly how many degrees did the average global temperature drop when all the 'planes were grounded after 11/9?

There were fewer man-made emmissions, because the 'planes were not flying, and the Earth cooled.
Spain made a big mistake giving in to terrorists.

First, it was 9/11, not 11/9.
And you have proof that the earth "cooled" because planes were not flying?

jcp123

02-26-2005, 05:38 PM

He goes by the European way of writing the date, day/month/year instead of our month/day/year. I use the European method too, on papers, since that's what I learned with, but yeah...9/11 is 9/11.

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 05:41 PM

You're too closed minded to ever accept evidence unless it is the ACTUAL destruction of the planet.

I provide a link of an OIL COMPANY accepting the evidence.
You ignore it

Stupidity only explains so much !!

Go stick your head back in the sand :)
Your reply still did not show any positive proof that there is global warming (and don't tell me an oil company believes it- that's not proof!), and this warming is caused directly by man and would stop if there were no humans on the earth. (You know, like there were no humans on earth millions of years ago when the earth also warmed and cooled.) As jcp123 correctly said, it's a natural process of which many exaggerate.
The earth's average temperature was supposed to have been warming by about 2.6 degrees by now, and it's far below that.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-26-2005, 05:41 PM

Spain made a big mistake giving in to terrorists.

First, it was 9/11, not 11/9.
And you have proof that the earth "cooled" because planes were not flying?

Spain didn't make a mistake, they made a change of Government. It was the fault of the government during the attack not to postpone the elections, showing they weren't afraid of Terrorists. When you start saying stuff like other governments without knowing all the facts, you expose yourself as a little naive and a lot ignorant.

And it's 11/9 where i am, the 11th of September, it's the date system, you guys put month ahead of Date, we are the other way around.

Just because it's different does not make it wrong.

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 05:42 PM

He goes by the European way of writing the date, day/month/year instead of our month/day/year. I use the European method too, on papers, since that's what I learned with, but yeah...9/11 is 9/11.
Really? I haven't seen that way. I have seen... 11 Sept. 2001.

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 05:44 PM

Spain didn't make a mistake, they made a change of Government. It was the fault of the government during the attack not to postpone the elections, showing they weren't afraid of Terrorists. When you start saying stuff like other governments without knowing all the facts, you expose yourself as a little naive and a lot ignorant.

Spain bowed down to terrorists. A big mistake similar to the one Neville Chamberlain made (he thought giving some land to Germany before WWII started would satisfy Hitler).

jcp123

02-26-2005, 05:45 PM

Yeah, it's really never used in America. I've always used it though, when I went to the private German-American school for 1-8th grades...and at home a lot since my Mom's Austrian. The professors here hate it, but I'm too stubborn to give it up now. Same with the way I write my 1's hehe.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-26-2005, 05:46 PM

Spain bowed down to terrorists. A big mistake similar to the one Neville Chamberlain made (he thought giving some land to Germany before WWII started would satisfy Hitler).

How did Spain bow down, by pulling out of an unjust war? by voting with it's feet and changing a government that they didn't like the policies of? Spain has been dealing with "Terrorists" for a long time, ever heard of ETA? the seperatist group seeking their own country, constantly bombing parts of Spain and other nerby countries.

Learn your history before you say they "Bow Down" to Terrorists. They have, in fact, been standing strong for a while now, just not against the U.S. percieved enemies.

Matra et Alpine

02-26-2005, 05:47 PM

Spain made a big mistake giving in to terrorists.
Explain why ?
Did their economy collapse ?
Were they overun with terrorist attacks ?
Have they been ostracised from the world community ?
How do you define "give in" ? The government listened to the PEOPLE.
Thank god for true democracies !!
Presidents weild too much decision making :(
First, it was 9/11, not 11/9.
Actually according to ISO 8061 it's neither :)
BUT both are acceptable as being in common usage.
You shoudl try to be more cosmopolitan :)
And you have proof that the earth "cooled" because planes were not flying?
I've not seen any, but it does raise the Q if anyone did research.
However, in the tradition of guilty unless proven innocent, I think it befalls to YOU Fleet to prove it didn't :)

Matra et Alpine

02-26-2005, 05:57 PM

Your reply still did not show any positive proof that there is global warming (and don't tell me an oil company believes it- that's not proof!), and this warming is caused directly by man and would stop if there were no humans on the earth. (You know, like there were no humans on earth millions of years ago when the earth also warmed and cooled.) As jcp123 correctly said, it's a natural process of which many exaggerate.
The earth's average temperature was supposed to have been warming by about 2.6 degrees by now, and it's far below that.
LOOK I've already covered this.
You wont believe anythign because
1) you don't understand science
2) you dont read
3) you ignore information that opposes your views
4) you're too lazy to follow links people provide that DO explain it
5) you're head isnt' stuck in the sand, it's clearly in a much more smellier place :(

IF you bother to go and look at the grapsh of MEASURED mean tempeartures you can see there is a CLEAR plateay since man became a dominant species ( 30,000 years ) and a DEFINITE increase IN MEAN MEASUERED TEMPERATURES since man entered the industrial era. Those facts are there. That you only listen to opinion of peopel who have a vested interset in you lining their pockest is your problem.

AS IS the fact that you refuse to accept thaqt BP have accepted the risks of climate change and are acting on it.
Stop blindly following the right wing and join the civilised world where we care for each other and our futures.

IF you STILL insist on ignoring all these and STILL demand that you aare more knowledgable that the British metrology research institue ( unbiased ) and the 112 other countries advisers who signed Kyoto, then fine. But dont' bable your inane nonsense here on UCP.

PROVE it is a natural cycle ...... do it in a new thread tho as this one is for American cars. Mindf it won't take long to debunk any proof you try to put forward :)

Matra et Alpine

02-26-2005, 06:01 PM

Spain bowed down to terrorists. A big mistake similar to the one Neville Chamberlain made (he thought giving some land to Germany before WWII started would satisfy Hitler).
You really are THE most ignorant person I have EVER encounterd in a forum.

Spain has been fighting terrorism in it's streets for 40 yeras.
They have been handling bombings and plane hijacking before GWB dodged his first military duty !!

PLEASE stop showing up American's as dumb rednecks.
SOME of us know they're not all as trailer-hicks , but those who dont' will think you are the best example :)

Coventrysucks

02-26-2005, 06:11 PM

First, it was 9/11, not 11/9.
And you have proof that the earth "cooled" because planes were not flying?

I - 11th day of the 9th month of the 2001st year AD

This is the conventional way of writing the date in the UK, it is how I write the date.

If you don't like it - find someone that cares more than I do.

II - Do you have any scientific proof that the Earth didn't cool?

CNN's article (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/)
This was very widely reported when the findings were initially announced, by most, if not all, respected news media outlets in the UK.

CdocZ

02-26-2005, 06:18 PM

IBrake4Rainbows

02-26-2005, 06:20 PM

It's kind of how most of the world does it. The Month/Day/Year system i've only ever encountered from the U.S.

CdocZ

02-26-2005, 06:22 PM

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 06:23 PM

I - 11th day of the 9th month of the 2001st year AD

This is the conventional way of writing the date in the UK, it is how I write the date.

If you don't like it - find someone that cares more than I do.

II - Do you have any scientific proof that the Earth didn't cool?

CNN's article (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/)
This was very widely reported when the findings were initially announced, by most, if not all, respected news media outlets in the UK.
It said right in the article, "Whether the jet clouds have a net affect on global warming remains unknown."

Why do so many people talk about a subject (dating) then say, "Find someone that care more..." :D

IBrake4Rainbows

02-26-2005, 06:24 PM

You've missed the point.

Can you prove the Earth DIDN'T cool?

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 06:27 PM

how come all the other countries seemt o have to adopt their ways to fit the u.s.? i was in ireland just a year ago almost, and there were more times where it said "miles" then "kilometers", plus i heard people using the 12 hour system the u.s. uses. europe has a bigger population, and is many more countries, shouldn't we be changing to those things instead?
I'm surprised that you saw "miles" in Ireland.
I don't think the U.S. will ever change to the metric system... too many people are used to the current system (I think it's called the British System).
I remember (and have magazines) from the early-to-mid '70s which kept claiming, "The U.S. will be completely metric by 1980." Public opposition kept that from happening.

I hope it doesn't change; I just couldn't get used to saying that a 43 degree day is hot.

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 06:29 PM

You've missed the point.

Can you prove the Earth DIDN'T cool?
No, but that's no the point. Many people insist that the earth is not only warming, but it's caused by man- if there were no humans the earth wouldn't be warming. And that's totally false- the earth had been warming and cooling for millions of years.

jcp123

02-26-2005, 06:30 PM

I'm really in between in the metric vs. Imperial measurement system...the metric system is much more logical thanks to no weird measurements like 12 inches in a foot and 5280ft. in a mile. But I as well am so used to doing Imperial measurements that I would also have a hard time switching. Would I have to start referring to a 390 Cad motor as a 6.4l? :D

IBrake4Rainbows

02-26-2005, 06:30 PM

It's not as hard as it sounds.

Australia Went Metric in 1966, with the implementation of the Dollar to replace the Pound. we've never looked backed, it's just easier working with Litres rather than Gallons, IMO.

CdocZ

02-26-2005, 06:31 PM

i dunno about you, but im pretty fluent with metric units. except for centigrade, and judging the cc's of something (i cant judge ci either, but thats another story). it would probably help if it changed, since then it would be alot easier to remember how many inches are in a mile :p
still, it seems kinda unfair to europe.

also, there were also quite a few (not alot, or anywhere near as many as i saw in ireland, but a few) signs that had miles (but also kilometers too) on them in england.
EDIT: this is to fleet

IBrake4Rainbows

02-26-2005, 06:32 PM

No, but that's no the point. Many people insist that the earth is not only warming, but it's caused by man- if there were no humans the earth wouldn't be warming. And that's totally false- the earth had been warming and cooling for millions of years.

Wheres the Evidence that hey Insist, the evidence shows that global warming occurs when fossil fuels are burned and the Atmopshere is thickened. causing heat to be trapped, but we won't get into that, thats been run and covered.

So much for my Truce :p

jcp123

02-26-2005, 06:32 PM

Yeah. I would have no problem with it switching over since I'm perfectly metric-literate and I appreciate the logic of the metric system. But my American pride has no problem staying different either :D

Egg Nog

02-26-2005, 06:35 PM

No, but that's no the point. Many people insist that the earth is not only warming, but it's caused by man- if there were no humans the earth wouldn't be warming. And that's totally false- the earth had been warming and cooling for millions of years.

Oh come on, you know that's not what everyone is saying.

You're trying to argue with a group of people that aren't even here - nobody on here doesn't realize the natural warming and cooling of the planet. We also realize that being conservative doesn't just mean being stubborn - I might even go so far as to say that you aren't even a very good conservative.

Then again, you thought that communism was a threat to Nicaragua ;) - but let's not re-hash that.

Coventrysucks

02-26-2005, 07:52 PM

I'm surprised that you saw "miles" in Ireland.
I don't think the U.S. will ever change to the metric system... too many people are used to the current system (I think it's called the British System).
I remember (and have magazines) from the early-to-mid '70s which kept claiming, "The U.S. will be completely metric by 1980." Public opposition kept that from happening.

Why are you "surprised" that he would see miles in Ireland?

Ireland being right next to Great Britain - the heartland of imperial measurements.

You'll be lucky to find any signs with km on in Britain apart from ports.

Aside from miles, I very rarely use imperial measurements because they don't actually make sense.

An inch is divisible by 8 and 16
A foot is made up of 12 inches
A yard is 3 ft
A fathom is 2 yards
A chain is 22 yards
A furlong is 220 yards
A mile is 1760 yards

There is a similarly random division of weights and measures.

Metric system is just divisions of 10, no need to commit bizzare ratios to memory.

Working out how many mm are in 15km is significantly easier than trying to find how many 16ths of an inch a in 15 miles.

And by happy coincidence working from the fact that 1cm cubed of water at 4° C is 1cl it means that 1 litre of most water based liquids weighs roughly 1kg

Napoleon's useful contribution to the world

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 08:02 PM

Oh come on, you know that's not what everyone is saying.

You're trying to argue with a group of people that aren't even here - nobody on here doesn't realize the natural warming and cooling of the planet. We also realize that being conservative doesn't just mean being stubborn - I might even go so far as to say that you aren't even a very good conservative.

Oh, stop jumping on the gang-up wagon. ;)

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 08:10 PM

Wheres the Evidence that hey Insist, the evidence shows that global warming occurs when fossil fuels are burned and the Atmopshere is thickened. causing heat to be trapped, but we won't get into that, thats been run and covered.

So much for my Truce :p
But increased smog/smoke/solid particles in the atmosphere could prevent sunlight reaching the earth causing a cooling.

This happened after the 1815 eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia. The following year (1816) was called the "Year without a Summer." The increased particulates in the atmosphere caused many frosts, even in summer, in places where summer frosts were unknown.

Fleet 500

02-26-2005, 08:15 PM

Why are you "surprised" that he would see miles in Ireland?

Ireland being right next to Great Britain - the heartland of imperial measurements.

You'll be lucky to find any signs with km on in Britain apart from ports.

Aside from miles, I very rarely use imperial measurements because they don't actually make sense.

An inch is divisible by 8 and 16
A foot is made up of 12 inches
A yard is 3 ft
A fathom is 2 yards
A chain is 22 yards
A furlong is 220 yards
A mile is 1760 yards

There is a similarly random division of weights and measures.

Metric system is just divisions of 10, no need to commit bizzare ratios to memory.

But hasn't Ireland been using the Metric system (officially) for many years?

The British system really isn't "bizzare." It's just a matter of learning the ratios- something an 8-year-old could learn. ;)

BTW, the Fahrenheit temperature scale is a more accurate measurement than the Celcius scale. Check a thermometer... the markings on the Fahrenheit side are closer together which means a smaller increase in temperature will register.

CdocZ

02-26-2005, 08:17 PM

But hasn't Ireland been using the Metric system (officially) for many years?

The British system really isn't "bizzare." It's just a matter of learning the ratios- something an 8-year-old could learn. ;)

BTW, the Fahrenheit temperature scale is a more accurate measurement than the Celcius scale. Check a thermometer... the markings on the Fahrenheit side are closer together which means a smaller increase in temperature will register.
So why then do people not use Kelvin? thats incredibly more accurate.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-26-2005, 09:41 PM

But increased smog/smoke/solid particles in the atmosphere could prevent sunlight reaching the earth causing a cooling.

This happened after the 1815 eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia. The following year (1816) was called the "Year without a Summer." The increased particulates in the atmosphere caused many frosts, even in summer, in places where summer frosts were unknown.

Ever heard of the Planet Venus?

That particular planet has a majorly thick atmosphere comprised of Carbon Dioxide and other noxious gases.

It allows heat and light in, but won't let it out. Thus superheating the planet and making it unliveable.

This is the Greenhouse Effect, and obviously this is lost on you.

The Tambora eruption also caused beautiful sunsets which inspired many paintings, kept the climate mild for the first few months, and then it screwed up the earths seasons by making summer cold and winter warm. Plus, Volcanic ash is a wee bit thicker than Carbon Monoxide particles. :)

And i'd prefer ease of use over accuracy anyday !

ZeTurbo

02-26-2005, 10:07 PM

And i'd prefer ease of use over accuracy anyday !
but...something that is not accurate is of no use at all.

SlickHolden

02-26-2005, 10:31 PM

I can't see why everyone can't just be the same.
Deg C
Cm
KW
Kg
Litre's
$
Meters
Kilometers
Kp/h

Something funny like my birthday. If i was in the U.S it would be 6776.. In OZ 7676 :D

crisis

02-27-2005, 02:28 AM

Spain made a big mistake giving in to terrorists.

When you look at what it meant to the terrorists I think they did. Unfortunately you either deal with them in a totally dogmatic way, that is refuse to acknowledge any demands or threats, or you give them a glimmer of hope that on certain occasions you may capitulate to their demands. This is very dangerous as it would invite them to ensure their acts were are worthy (!) of recognition. The Spanish people panicked after the assualt but I suppose it was understandable. Sensible people generally will do anything for peace. The problem is , is it long term or short term?

crisis

02-27-2005, 02:36 AM

crisis

02-27-2005, 02:40 AM

I don't think the U.S. will ever change to the metric system... too many people are used to the current system
Sounds like the case with a lot of things in America. ;)

Coventrysucks

02-27-2005, 03:55 AM

It's just a matter of learning the ratios- something an 8-year-old could learn. ;)

How's things under the bridge?

Did I say I couldn't remember them?
Did I say I didn't know them?

I said that with Metric there would be no need to remember them.

You seriously need to attend some reading and comprehension classes, if you think that "there would be no need" means "I don't know them and am incapable of remembering them".

And you still haven't proven that the climate didn't change when air traffic was grounded after 11/9/01.

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:13 AM

It said right in the article, "Whether the jet clouds have a net affect on global warming remains unknown."
IT ALSO said in about 6 places IT HAS IMPACT.
Balancing opinion is improtant, all YOU do is spoit the bit you support and IGNORE the rest in any intelligent evaluation ( maybe I'm kaing a big assumption there :) )
SO, to return to the main thread on cliamte change. DOES affecting tempeartures by human actiosn AFFECTR the planets climate ?
Shoudl the planet look after its;'elf.
How can a natural ecosystem evolved over bilklions of years cope with th eHUGE changes that man is making to it ?
It didnt' evolve to handle sudden change.

The problem with folsk who stick their head in the sand about this - GWB - is that SOMEONE else IS having to do somethign and when the shit ( IF ) hits the fan we ALL pay big style. It took the crash of the Valdex tanker to focus on the types of ships and routes oil was being trasnposrted via. THAT was nminor tot the shit that will happen if awe hav ea climate "crash". That idiots want to wait till it is 100% prove - ie that woudl be AS the Valdiz hit the rocks then IT IS TOO LATE.

Waken up to responsibilites. Kids get away without any, Adults dont ( shouldnt )

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:19 AM

I'm surprised that you saw "miles" in Ireland.
I don't think the U.S. will ever change to the metric system... too many people are used to the current system (I think it's called the British System).
Worse for you guys, it's called the IMPERIAL system from the days the British Empire was in charge :)
You have already changed a large part to the metric system.
All engineering developmetn is in metric.
( A recent Mars probe failed because an older design lifted and re-used was in imperial, their was a mix up in the imperial v metric measurements and it crashed :)
BUT, it's coming and wont' be stopped completely.
I remember (and have magazines) from the early-to-mid '70s which kept claiming, "The U.S. will be completely metric by 1980." Public opposition kept that from happening.
NOT just public opposition, but the COST to changeover becomes excessive and is one of the main reasons for the main UK not changing. Every road sign adn distance marker woudl need replaced. LOTS of money :(
I hope it doesn't change; I just couldn't get used to saying that a 43 degree day is hot.
Well only Celsius is an SI unit ( derived from Kelvin ).
You can't do caluclatiosn that make any sens in Fahrenheit ( hence not an SI unit ) So other than the weather tv report NOBODY uses Fahrenheit as you can't do any calculations with it that make sense )
yea, but how much is 1/3 mile in yards ?
Kids in the UK now think we're mad to have had base 12, 14, 16 and 24 systems !! Nwo they only ever need to divide by 10s - MUCH easier for everything from weight, distance and volume :)

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:26 AM

No, but that's no the point. Many people insist that the earth is not only warming, but it's caused by man- if there were no humans the earth wouldn't be warming. And that's totally false- the earth had been warming and cooling for millions of years.
First, it WAS the point.
YOU DEMAND of other to prove their position and flincha dn run when asked to PROVE youtrs. Because PROVE is impossible in this case until it happens !!!
That's why chaos theory maths and statistics are used in analysese of these issues.
Second. you missed the point ALREADY MADE TO YOU, that wamring and cooling are climate change and it is CLIAMTE CHANGE that all the real reports are about. THAT the media you view and read dumb it down so far that you think it means warmer or colder and how can it be both is a problem with the presentation NOT that information.
Third, NOBODY has ever said without humans the earth woudlnt' be warming.
I suspect you made that up to make you feel good :)
Or someone else did and you bought into the myth.
Check out ALL the information providede to you , the concern ALWAYS voiced by the analysists is that the RATE OF CHANGE is more than it has ever been and THAT will have impact on climate. In Cchaos theory hugh rate of change is BAD as you cannot then stop the 'flip' in state.

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:33 AM

I very rarely use imperial measurements because they don't actually make sense.....Metric system is just divisions of 10, no need to commit bizzare ratios to memory.
This is one I use with kids in class to expand their critical analysis techniques :)
The imperisal system came abotu beacuse man used to barter.
So if I had 16 oranges and you woudl trade 1/4 of them for 1/3 of the 12 apples then it was easy. Try doing that with 10 oranges and 10 apples :)
So they came about because things like 12 is divisble by more numbers than any other , 2,3,4,6. etc
Also, SOME measurments came about because of the use of our bodies to measure things. And time to do things - eg an acre is as much areas a sa a horse can plough in a day :)
So BACK then before we all becaome "leanred" in mathematics it was "easier" for trade.
BUT it sucked when trying to do engineering.
Napolean gave us the basis of the Internatioanl Standard and it became clear that the engineering world was more important for the advancement of man than bartering and so the metric system evolved as whilst it was more difficult to share 10 workesr amonst 3 employers (ouch), it meant getting a bolt the right size was MUCH easier :)

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:35 AM

Oh, stop jumping on the gang-up wagon. ;)
Does it not open your eyes to the possibility that you are holding an opinion that is at odds with reality as more peopel feel compelled to opint the errors out ?

At this point most folks realise the other points validity :)

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:41 AM

So why then do people not use Kelvin? thats incredibly more accurate.
I bit my toungue and avoided "abusing" Fleet when he first raised accuracy.
BUT I CAN"T LET IT GO, as someone might think it correct.

First, because units are closer together on the scale doesn't make them more accurate :)
HOW ON EARTH anyone can think that is astounding in todays age !!
There are subdivisoin to INFINITY available. Thermomenters have division created by man, the real world the divisions are at the quantum level. So 1 degree fahrenheit is a smaller tempearture change than one degree centigrade. And THAT is supposed to mean it's more accureat. So is 32.1 F more accurate than 0.01 Centigrade ?? Please dont' follow Fleet's mis-logic :)

Any SI unit can be subdivided into pico units if REAL accuracay was needed.
WHICH leads nicesly to Kelvin :) ....
SI units can ONLY work because there is a ZERO point and equal divisions f many units thereafter.
KELVIN is the 0 degree point.
Then to fit in with our "real world" we have 0 degrees centigrade is freezing point at 273 degrees kelvin and 100 degrees centigrade is boiling point and 373 degreees kelvin.
Now comes the harder bit .. you CANNOT do caluclatiosn in fahrenheit or centigrade as they are not base units. So half of 80 degrees centigrade is 40 degrees centigrade but is NOT half the TEMPERATUE. It is only 273+40/273+80 = 0.89 of the temperature !!! Just over 1/10th lower.
( and try doign THAT calculatio in F :) )
So Centigrade and Fahrenheit are scales to make us grasp tempearture without the mess of big numbers like Kelvin. BUT as Centigrade uses the same temperature gradient as keliving - ie one degree increase in centigrade is one degree increase in kelving it IS possible to use derived maths to make sense in calculations. SO fahrenheit is a dead end as are feet, inches and niles.

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:43 AM

but...something that is not accurate is of no use at all.
You can always subdivide any metric unit and it still makes sense.

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:45 AM

The Spanish people panicked after the assualt but I suppose it was understandable. Sensible people generally will do anything for peace. The problem is , is it long term or short term?
I'm not sure that it was PANIC as thety ahve been faced with the ETA issue for gnerations. I think it was more that it gave them the chance to re-evaluate the situation and consider what kind of society did they want ? One where the bully woudl act strong and force his/her will or one where negotiation and legal process were strongest. Personally I tihnk they chose the latter knowing its' the only chance for long term peace and stability within their borders and in the world. ( Much as happened in NI )

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:53 AM

Sorry guys, I'm going to limit on one post per day on this stuff now as clearly the lunatics are in charge of the asylum in the US at the moment and I coudl spend all day correcting SOOO many errors, omissions, lies, delusions :)

Coventrysucks

02-27-2005, 12:09 PM

Something about apples

I agree that the imperial system makes divisions into whole numbers easier.

BUT

Why are some things divisible by 2, 4, 8, 16, others by 3, 6, 12, others by 22?

Must be something to do with all the opium being smoked at the time.

Egg Nog

02-27-2005, 12:57 PM

Oh, stop jumping on the gang-up wagon. ;)

I agree/apologize, insults have no real place in any debate. Sorry.

My views still stand though. Liberalism can work, esepcially on a global scale. Maybe it can't work for certain people's interpretations on developed world economies, but they were never sustainable to begin with. On a fully international level, liberalism is the way to go if we are to believe that all humans deserve a chance to be at least partially equal.

Just ask the Nicaraguans ;)

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 01:04 PM

Does it not open your eyes to the possibility that you are holding an opinion that is at odds with reality as more peopel feel compelled to opint the errors out ?

At this point most folks realise the other points validity :)
Does it not open your eyes to the possibilty that many people here agree with my opinions but would not rather participate in debating when there are people like you who jump on every word said? ;)

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 01:07 PM

Im not sure why anyone would argue about reducing CO2, global warming or not. If global warming is happening it is crucial we do something asap. If it turns out to be not as bad as many think, the worst we are doing is reducing pollution. To me thats a good thing.
How can we "do something" when most of it naturally-caused? What can we do- put plugs or corks on volcanoes? ;)

CdocZ

02-27-2005, 01:10 PM

How can we "do something" when most of it naturally-caused? What can we do- put plugs or corks on volcanoes? ;)
We could shut down all factories, buildings, appliances, reactors (of all types). Or humanity as a whole could commit suicide :p

You asked :D

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 01:10 PM

I agree/apologize, insults have no real place in any debate. Sorry.

My views still stand though. Liberalism can work, esepcially on a global scale. Maybe it can't work for certain people's interpretations on developed world economies, but they were never sustainable to begin with. On a fully international level, liberalism is the way to go if we are to believe that all humans deserve a chance to be at least partially equal.

Just ask the Nicaraguans ;)
Okay, thanks. :)

Let liberalism be on global scale- just keep it out of the U.S. We already had to suffer under that with President Carter (22% interest rates, 12.9% inflation, 9% unemployment).

Nicaragua would be better off as a Republic.

Egg Nog

02-27-2005, 01:42 PM

Okay, thanks. :)

Let liberalism be on global scale- just keep it out of the U.S. We already had to suffer under that with President Carter (22% interest rates, 12.9% inflation, 9% unemployment).

Nicaragua would be better off as a Republic.

They were doing extremely well after they elected Ortega in '83 (very left-wing) and he helped to build strength among the massive lower classes. They set an example for other underdeveloped countires to follow.

The Sandinista party's policies didn't favour the USA at all. It's a shame that the US had to retaliate, because things were getting a lot better.

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 03:55 PM

Does it not open your eyes to the possibilty that many people here agree with my opinions but would not rather participate in debating when there are people like you who jump on every word said? ;)
Yours are the only words being jumped on "every word said" because besides the adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and determiners pretty mucj the rest is rubbish :)

Your argument would hold water, Fleet, if at some time in the past folks HAD supported you, had felt "attacked" and then retreated.
But sadly , outside of your own mind there isn't anyone who does :)
But I'm sure you're not lonely in there :) badda-bang :)

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 03:57 PM

How can we "do something" when most of it naturally-caused? What can we do- put plugs or corks on volcanoes? ;)
MOST of it is naturally caused.

NO, MOST of the increase is man made.

Go look up the WEIGHT of CO2 than the activities of mankind are pusing into the atmosphere.
We've been lucky that it's been abrorbing it, but there IS a limit.

If you spill a spoonful of water, you know a towel will clean it up. IF you spill a bucket, you knwo that it needs a different solution to a paper towel.

Stop being so blind to the obvious by your bias in supporting a government who has todl you that Kyoto is wrong !!!

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 04:01 PM

We could shut down all factories, buildings, appliances, reactors (of all types). Or humanity as a whole could commit suicide :p

You asked :D

Interesting.

Glasgow was the industrial heart of Scotland and the major ship builder in the world at one time.
Back then, Glasgow was permanently shoruded in smoke.
Fortunately, there is usually wind/rain in Scotland so it wasn't a MAJOR issue ( as the smog in London or Laa for example )

HOwever, I remember as a kid going up the hills of the clyde valley durign the "Glasgow fair fortnight" - the first 2 weeks in July when EVERY factory closed down for the workers holiday. I remember the difference even back in the 60s as a kid.

Now that most of them are cleaned up, scrubbers on outlets and some been closed down, you can go up at anytime and see all the way down the coast. An unheard of possibility only 40 years ago.

So, YES, we CAN make a difference if we take the right actions

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 04:03 PM

Okay, thanks. :)

Let liberalism be on global scale- just keep it out of the U.S. We already had to suffer under that with President Carter (22% interest rates, 12.9% inflation, 9% unemployment).

Nicaragua would be better off as a Republic.
In 50 years time when China is the major world power and the US has exported all the hi-tech jobs to India nd only jobs to get are flipping burgers in McDonalds, you'll be screaming for a democracy, not a presidential one, but one for the people by the people :)

CdocZ

02-27-2005, 04:04 PM

Interesting.

Glasgow was the industrial heart of Scotland and the major ship builder in the world at one time.
Back then, Glasgow was permanently shoruded in smoke.
Fortunately, there is usually wind/rain in Scotland so it wasn't a MAJOR issue ( as the smog in London or Laa for example )

HOwever, I remember as a kid going up the hills of the clyde valley durign the "Glasgow fair fortnight" - the first 2 weeks in July when EVERY factory closed down for the workers holiday. I remember the difference even back in the 60s as a kid.

Now that most of them are cleaned up, scrubbers on outlets and some been closed down, you can go up at anytime and see all the way down the coast. An unheard of possibility only 40 years ago.

So, YES, we CAN make a difference if we take the right actions

uuuuuhhhhhhh that post was a joke. lol.

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 04:11 PM

Yours are the only words being jumped on "every word said" because besides the adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and determiners pretty mucj the rest is rubbish :)

Your argument would hold water, Fleet, if at some time in the past folks HAD supported you, had felt "attacked" and then retreated.
But sadly , outside of your own mind there isn't anyone who does :)
But I'm sure you're not lonely in there :) badda-bang :)
Glad you have an open mind about other members. :rolleyes: :)

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 04:14 PM

MOST of it is naturally caused.

You've got it right there! No need to discuss it further if we both agree. ;)

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 05:03 PM

You've got it right there! No need to discuss it further if we both agree. ;)

Theres no point using this as a quote if the rest of the post is not taken into context, which makes this part a little irrelevant.

Most of it is Natural. The INCREASES registered are man made, so your both right.

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:27 PM

uuuuuhhhhhhh that post was a joke. lol.
You shoudl spend some time in a pub with radicals !!

Clsoe down all production and return to an agrarian society.
AS he downs a pint built in a production unit only 10 miles away :)

The irony was lost on him.

There ARE people out there who want us to do that - to twist a now famous NRA saying ... they can take my car keys from my cold dead hands

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 05:29 PM

You shoudl spend some time in a pub with radicals !!

Clsoe down all production and return to an agrarian society.
AS he downs a pint built in a production unit only 10 miles away :)

The irony was lost on him.

There ARE people out there who want us to do that - to twist a now famous NRA saying ... they can take my car keys from my cold dead hands

There are people like that, we call them Greenies. :p

And they have their place, like every other train of thought, but any group that forces their beliefs or values onto you I just ignore.

Thats why i'm not a Religious person :p

Matra et Alpine

02-27-2005, 05:30 PM

You've got it right there! No need to discuss it further if we both agree. ;)
I'd sugegsted once before about reading the story of the "straw that broke the camels back"

ONLY a fool believes that you can ignore what you ADD to any situation - the environmetn or passengers in a car or bricks in your trunk !!

VERY SILY reading that comment when you think it through :)

So if the world falls apart when somethign reaches X ( lets say 100 ) then we shouldn't worry adding 10 as nature has added 95 ?? DUH !! You just went over the limit.

PLEASE try to understand the basics before returing to a subject that is clearly too complex to grasp for you.

crisis

02-27-2005, 09:07 PM

I'm not sure that it was PANIC as thety ahve been faced with the ETA issue for gnerations. I think it was more that it gave them the chance to re-evaluate the situation and consider what kind of society did they want ? One where the bully woudl act strong and force his/her will or one where negotiation and legal process were strongest. Personally I tihnk they chose the latter knowing its' the only chance for long term peace and stability within their borders and in the world. ( Much as happened in NI )
That was some quick evaluation. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt but it seemed to me a knee jerk reaction. Their reaction did nothing to ensure world stability or placate the terrorists anyway. Is it just my cynical nature or is something strange about how the US, Australiam , UK and Spanish (and there are probably others) major political parties are perfectly polarised to the for or against sides regarding the US actions. Its as though they identify the issue as the perfect unambiguous way to differentiate themselves from their opposition?

crisis

02-27-2005, 09:11 PM

How can we "do something" when most of it naturally-caused? What can we do- put plugs or corks on volcanoes? ;)
We can do something. We can do many things. We cant do everything. So lets choose. If we cant do everything do we throw our hands up and say its all fvcked , game over or can we work away a bit at a time. I doubt volcanoes are the main culprit and if there are other less controllable forces at work it makes it all the more neccessary for us to do what we can. Otherwise we would still be pumping raw sewage into the ocean (well Sydney does) instead of treating it because the fish crap in it anyway.

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 09:26 PM

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 09:29 PM

As I said, the U.S. has had regulations on many things (cars, factories) for many, many years. It's not like "nothing" is being done.
Volcanoes are a major factor. They don't erupt often, but when they do, huge amounts of climate-altering gases are ejected into the atmosphere. 5 years of carefully-controlling emissions can be wiped out with just one big volcano eruption.

But the fact is that the U.S. emissions laws are among the most lax in the world. you can still get away with driving a 1mpg Cadilac with no Catalytic converter and be undoing some of the help a Prius or Insight driver does.

Volcanoes are a problem to the Atmosphere, no question, but what recent eruption has caused a major problem to the global warming camp by spitting ash into the atmosphere and making a "year with out summer", save for Tambora?

It's better than doing absolutely nothing and just adding to the problem, just because something else does it does not make it ok.

crisis

02-27-2005, 09:31 PM

jcp123

02-27-2005, 09:35 PM

But the fact is that the U.S. emissions laws are among the most lax in the world. you can still get away with driving a 1mpg Cadilac with no Catalytic converter and be undoing some of the help a Prius or Insight driver does.

I could say something about that, but I won't. No sense beating a dead horse.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 09:43 PM

I tell a lie, there are around 50 countries, most of them from the third world, with worse emissions laws.

Australia hasn't signed Kyoto either.

jcp123

02-27-2005, 09:46 PM

Most South American countries have no emissions laws, either, and I imagine some of the poorer Asian nations as well as African nations are pretty lax that way as well.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 09:51 PM

well having A car there would be a luxury, we in the western world see it as a right to be able to drive where we need to. We should be the ones limiting ourselves and taking responsibility, which some countries are.

Spastik_Roach

02-27-2005, 09:53 PM

Volcanoes are a problem to the Atmosphere, no question, but what recent eruption has caused a major problem to the global warming camp by spitting ash into the atmosphere and making a "year with out summer", save for Tambora?

Volcanoes help make fertile land to put farms on etc... so they're a good help aswell :)

jcp123

02-27-2005, 09:53 PM

I don't even drive that much, maybe 5000 miles (8000km) a year.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 09:55 PM

I probably drive (By my own control) less than 1000 km a year.

With the family, maybe 12-14000.

I'm no good at converting to miles, is it times by 1.2?

And most of NZ is volcanic, i've never seen a greener place.

jcp123

02-27-2005, 10:00 PM

1 mile ~ 1.6 km

That's not a lot though considering my parents put on 12-15,000 miles each per year when they were commuting every day to work, plus weekend ski trips. My Dad's retired now so he doesn't drive much either, but my Mom still commutes 40 miles a day round trip to work.

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 10:16 PM

But the fact is that the U.S. emissions laws are among the most lax in the world.
I doubt that. Practically anything that emits emissions is regulated. For instance, cars since 1965.

Spastik_Roach

02-27-2005, 10:22 PM

Then i'd like to know how a Nissan Silvia with a 2.0l SR20DET Turbo motor isn't allowed in America because of emissions, but all these absolutely gas guzzling V10 PEtrol blah blah Hummer motors are? I can guarantee you that a SR20DET would be more economical than anyone of the Hummer motors.

jcp123

02-27-2005, 10:22 PM

And need I bring up how much the production of these more efficient modern cars pollutes? By not demanding one more new car, I have also saved the earth some pollution in that way, as well.

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 10:26 PM

I think even Hummers have to pass smog tests when they are required, aren't they? :confused:

jcp123

02-27-2005, 10:28 PM

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 10:49 PM

Some do, although not the H1 diesels...diesel trucks are the most lax of any nowadays. A lot of truck guys like to get diesels for that reason. You could stick a 502 big block in a brand new Hummer H1 and it wouldn't be any of the Government's business ;)
Pretty sneaky! :D
Or they could do what we do (drive pre-'76, smog-exempt cars)!
BTW, my annual mileage is also quite low- certainly no more than 8,000 miles/year and probably a lot less than that.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 10:49 PM

I doubt that. Practically anything that emits emissions is regulated. For instance, cars since 1965.

Anything may be regulated, but how well?

A lot of those laws probably are from 1965.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 10:51 PM

Pretty sneaky! :D
Or they could do what we do (drive pre-'76, smog-exempt cars)!
BTW, my annual mileage is also quite low- certainly no more than 8,000 miles/year and probably a lot less than that.

Older cars emit more noxious gases. It's a proven fact due to the fact a lot of them run on Leaded (Or used to) and because of their lack of emissions controls they can pump as much as they like into the atmosphere without being regulated.

Just because they are exempt doesn't mean they aren't pumping stuff into the atmosphere.

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 10:52 PM

Anything may be regulated, but how well?

A lot of those laws probably are from 1965.
No, they are definitely updated all of the time.
No way could a factory get away with 1965 regulations!
And, the smog standards are very strict for recent cars. I've checked a readout for my '76 Cadillac with my brother's '98 Ford F-150 Truck, and the allowable emissions for the '98 is set much lower. (But my '76 Caddy was very close in output for one of them, I think carbon dioxide.)

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 10:54 PM

Older cars emit more noxious gases. It's a proven fact due to the fact a lot of them run on Leaded (Or used to) and because of their lack of emissions controls they can pump as much as they like into the atmosphere without being regulated.

Just because they are exempt doesn't mean they aren't pumping stuff into the atmosphere.
But as I said, my annual mileage is well below that of the average (which I believe is about 12,000 miles).
And, many other owners of classic cars drive them far less- like only to car shows. So, overall, they emit the same or maybe less than a more recent car which is driven 20,000 miles per year.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 10:56 PM

No, they are definitely updated all of the time.
No way could a factory get away with 1965 regulations!
And, the smog standards are very strict for recent cars. I've checked a readout for my '76 Cadillac with my brother's '98 Ford F-150 Truck, and the allowable emissions for the '98 is set much lower. (But my '76 Caddy was very close in output for one of them, I think carbon dioxide.)

The Carbon Dioxide would not surprise me, the amount of fuel used would be similar for both cars.

I find it hard to believe that laws can be both strict and allow such blatant fuel wasters as the Ford Expedition and Hummer H2 a pass.

It'd be better if they had a system like the U.K, based on CO2 emissions.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 10:58 PM

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 11:02 PM

it's still old.

It still emits noxious gases.

probably the same amount as a newer car driven about 15-17000 Miles a year.
So do volcanoes.

Glad you agree. Given the choice of driving a car I really want to drive 5,000 miles/year or a new one which I really don't care for 15-17,000 miles/year, I choose the former!

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 11:05 PM

I find it hard to believe that laws can be both strict and allow such blatant fuel wasters as the Ford Expedition and Hummer H2 a pass.

It'd be better if they had a system like the U.K, based on CO2 emissions.
I think it's because some of the Hummers (the H2?) are classified as "Off Road" or something like that and don't have to pass the same tests as regular cars.

jcp123

02-27-2005, 11:05 PM

The extra amount put out by classic cars is usually offset by the emissions from building a new car in the first place. That's why I really don't feel too bad about driving what I do.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 11:06 PM

So do volcanoes.

Glad you agree. Given the choice of driving a car I really want to drive 5,000 miles/year or a new one 15-17,000 miles/year, I choose the former!

Volcanoes don't clog up our roads with black smog everyday.

and good for you for driving an older car, your a braver man than i.

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 11:06 PM

The extra amount put out by classic cars is usually offset by the emissions from building a new car in the first place. That's why I really don't feel too bad about driving what I do.
Good point.

jcp123

02-27-2005, 11:08 PM

I think it's because some of the Hummers (the H2?) are classified as "Off Road" or something like that and don't have to pass the same tests as regular cars.

Emissions of trucks fall into a completely different category from cars. I'm not sure what the loophole on diesels is, but is's freakin sweet.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-27-2005, 11:15 PM

New cars have more recyclable parts, so they don't have the same amount of wasted energy put into them as an older car.

And it's typical that their is a loophole, laywers can exploit anything.

jcp123

02-27-2005, 11:21 PM

I sincerely doubt the lawers had much to do with it. Diesels even in trucks were't exactly popular back in the 70's. Come to think of it, I don't think a domestic had a diesel truck engine until the 80's. But it's only in recent years with better engines like the Cummins and Ford Powerstroke that diesels in light trucks have really caught on with normal consumers.

And while what you say is technically true, the demand for brand new car keeps putting more and more emissions into the atmosphere. Buying even a late model used car means that the emissions have already been absorbed into the atmosphere, and so you are still adding less than you would by buying a brand new car.

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 11:24 PM

Volcanoes don't clog up our roads with black smog everyday.
and good for you for driving an older car, your a braver man than i.
Have you seen what one eruption can put out? Thousands of tons of soot. Probably more than all of the cars in the world combined can put out in 5 years.

Nothing to be brave about. For instance, it's great driving my 375 hp* '69 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham to the weekly local (Friday night) car gathering and looking at the other classic, non-cookie-cutter cars. Like the '72 Plymouth Duster 340 with a built engine (puts out 420 hp at the rear wheels) and reading some of the amusing stickers (like the one on the same Plymouth which says, "My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda makes"). :D

After seeing parking lots of which 99% of the cars look the same, it's very refreshing to see cars built before the government styled them.
Real chrome, real rear overhang, real front overhang, nice-sounding engines, and a real horn with the low HONK sound, not the toy-like "beep" that even today's Mercedes have.
*It's actually around 400 hp now because dual exhaust was added by the former owner.

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 11:26 PM

New cars have more recyclable parts, so they don't have the same amount of wasted energy put into them as an older car.

I've heard, that in some instances, more smog is made "recycling a car" than the car was itself!

jcp123

02-27-2005, 11:26 PM

Yeah, it takes more brevity for me to get into a new car than it does for a classic.

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 11:29 PM

Yeah, it takes more brevity for me to get into a new car than it does for a classic.
I see what you mean. Who knows how much noxious fumes are being released by all of that plastic in the new cars? :D

jcp123

02-27-2005, 11:41 PM

Fleet 500

02-27-2005, 11:50 PM

True, most classic cars have a proven reliability record.

Yeah, it would be a nightmare trying to fix a new car that's stuck on the side of the road. And, if you end up taking it to a mechanic, it costs about $250 just to hook it up to the shop computer/machine to get a diagnosis.

FaeLLe

02-28-2005, 12:06 AM

Got some numbers for that ?
Stock both cars or just the modded one v stock M3 ? Or BOTH modded ??
0-60 and 1/4 mile or track/sprint/autotest/rally ( coz I can assure you you wont touch an M3 rally car :) )

Well both stock cause i aint modded my car and in Dubai its illegal to mod cars engine wise and i raced this M3 on the highway touching speeds of bit above 240 KM/h and i took it by a little distance.

If a car is modded (muscle car) you can take almost most any stock one.

Peace.

- FaeLLe

www.FaeLLe.com (http://www.FaeLLe.com)

FaeLLe

02-28-2005, 12:09 AM

I dont know which model this is but thought i would share this hot Shelby with you car fans ;)

http://www.geocities.com/zack20002/shelby2.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/zack20002/shelby1.jpg

Hope you like it :cool:

- FaeLLe

www.FaeLLe.com

FaeLLe

02-28-2005, 12:29 AM

Sweet. SS Commodore LS1 about 245kw. I got a similar one . Loads of fun. Is yours a manual or auto.

They dont sell the manual version in Dubai.

I am consider changing my gear box to try fix the Aston Martin DB9 gear box if its gonna fit.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-28-2005, 02:41 AM

Have you seen what one eruption can put out? Thousands of tons of soot. Probably more than all of the cars in the world combined can put out in 5 years.

Nothing to be brave about. For instance, it's great driving my 375 hp* '69 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham to the weekly local (Friday night) car gathering and looking at the other classic, non-cookie-cutter cars. Like the '72 Plymouth Duster 340 with a built engine (puts out 420 hp at the rear wheels) and reading some of the amusing stickers (like the one on the same Plymouth which says, "My lug nuts require more torque than your Honda makes"). :D

After seeing parking lots of which 99% of the cars look the same, it's very refreshing to see cars built before the government styled them.
Real chrome, real rear overhang, real front overhang, nice-sounding engines, and a real horn with the low HONK sound, not the toy-like "beep" that even today's Mercedes have.
*It's actually around 400 hp now because dual exhaust was added by the former owner.

I like older cars, but the only reason that they are hanging around is because people like you guys bother to restore them, otherwise they'd just disappear. They need your help to keep them on the roads, otherwise they will die and continuously cause trouble. It's lucky that you guys have at least a vague idea of how to look after them, I don't plan on owning a classic car until such time as i can pay for the repairs......

I have Seen an eruption, my Aunts farm in New Zealand overlooks a volcano that was spewing gases and "Soot" (Volcanic ash), It last erupted back in 1987 or so. Since then i can guarantee every older car in New Zealand would have put out twice the amount of gas that thing did.

When a natural event occurs theres nothing WE can do about it, but WE can change the way we do business, even if nature twarts our plans. Why Make things worse? :)

And that GR1 looks weird from the back, too much metal.

IBrake4Rainbows

02-28-2005, 02:41 AM

They dont sell the manual version in Dubai.

I am consider changing my gear box to try fix the Aston Martin DB9 gear box if its gonna fit.

You mean like a Tiptronic or Sequential system?

Your having a laugh, it won't work properly.....

CdocZ

02-28-2005, 08:42 AM

Faelle...........Thats is a Shelby GR-1. Very nice, and thank you!

FaeLLe

02-28-2005, 09:52 AM

You mean like a Tiptronic or Sequential system?

Your having a laugh, it won't work properly.....

Sad isnt it :(

I really wanted it to work its only the gear box of the M3 that gives it the advantage.

By the way if the Shelby GR-1 picture wont display because Geocities has gone out of bandwidth please find it on my website www.FaeLLe.com (http://www.FaeLLe.com)

- FaeLLe

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 12:55 PM

I like older cars, but the only reason that they are hanging around is because people like you guys bother to restore them, otherwise they'd just disappear. They need your help to keep them on the roads, otherwise they will die and continuously cause trouble. It's lucky that you guys have at least a vague idea of how to look after them, I don't plan on owning a classic car until such time as i can pay for the repairs......

I have Seen an eruption, my Aunts farm in New Zealand overlooks a volcano that was spewing gases and "Soot" (Volcanic ash), It last erupted back in 1987 or so. Since then i can guarantee every older car in New Zealand would have put out twice the amount of gas that thing did.

When a natural event occurs theres nothing WE can do about it, but WE can change the way we do business, even if nature twarts our plans. Why Make things worse? :)

I've got a surprise for you... I've seen many not-so-old (like mid-'90s) cars dead on the road, both Domestic and Foreign. And, those, too would otherwise be dead and cause trouble if nobody helped fix them.
And, what's this "continuously" cause trouble? The instances when I have to have something repaired on my Cadillacs are relatively rare. Basically, the engine and transmission are pretty much a just "drive and forget it" deal. Except for checking the fluids and changing the radiator and heater hoses when needed, there isn't much to do as far as upkeep. In fact, very similar to typical modern cars.
Incidentally, the Torqueflite (3-speed automatic transmissions) in Mopars in the '60s did not even need the fluid changed at all under normal conditions.

Having years of strict emission controls, only to have all of that work wiped out with one large volcano eruption, seems like a waste. Yes, we should (and do) try to control emissions- but not to the point where we get paranoid about it.

The eruption you mentioned in New Zealand must have not been a large one. Don't forget wild/forest fires. There was that huge one in Australia a while back and the 3 or 4 out here in Southern California. Huge amounts of smoke pouring into the air, easily visible on satellite photos. There goes about 5 years of carefully controlling emissions!

crisis

02-28-2005, 03:40 PM

But as I said, my annual mileage is well below that of the average (which I believe is about 12,000 miles).
And, many other owners of classic cars drive them far less- like only to car shows. So, overall, they emit the same or maybe less than a more recent car which is driven 20,000 miles per year.
Your average mileage is. What about the people who hold onto old cars and do drive them thousands of mile a year. Older cars use more fuel and pollute more. Thats the fact. How far you drive is irrelevant as there will also be drivers of new cars that onnly cover nominal miles a year and they will pollute less than you and use less fuel.

crisis

02-28-2005, 03:41 PM

So do volcanoes.

Glad you agree. Given the choice of driving a car I really want to drive 5,000 miles/year or a new one which I really don't care for 15-17,000 miles/year, I choose the former!
Thats ok as long as you dont have many places to go.

crisis

02-28-2005, 03:42 PM

The extra amount put out by classic cars is usually offset by the emissions from building a new car in the first place. That's why I really don't feel too bad about driving what I do.
Bullsh!t.

crisis

02-28-2005, 03:45 PM

Have you seen what one eruption can put out? Thousands of tons of soot. Probably more than all of the cars in the world combined can put out in 5 years.

I may have mentioned this before :confused: but does this mean, as far as you are concerned, that if we cant control the uncontrollable, then we should give up on trying to control what is controllable?

crisis

02-28-2005, 03:56 PM

Nah, it's not even that. Fundamentally, I haven't demonstrably seen a new car to be more reliable than a classic. I have been stranded in a '96 Caravan once, a '97 Lincoln Mk.VIII once (the ONLY time I rode in it, at that!), a '96 Saturn twice, a VW Beetle once and a VW Passat once. Our '67 Mustang stranded us twice right after we got it in 2000. Since we fixed it, NONE of our Mustangs have left us stranded (and two of them are used as daily drivers). That makes 5 years for the '67, almost 3 years for my car, and 2 for my Dad's Mach 1 or trouble-free service (aside from normal maintenance and trying to keep my Dad's freakin Holley carburetor tuned).

To expand on that, I know that if I were stranded by one of our Mustangs, I could probably fix it pretty easily; this is why I bother carrying a full tool kit with me. On a new car, I'd be SOL trying to fix whatever went wrong.
Well lets trade individual pointless anecdotes then shall we? I have owned about thirteen cars as far as I can remember. The old ones, pre 80s, troublesome on cold mornings due to the neccessity of a choke on the carby. so you can have the pleasure of restarting it a few times on your way to work. More prone to overheating due to underdeveloped cooling systems. Power draining A/C units due to older design. Need to replace spark plugs every 5-10000 ks. Points, how quaint. I seem to remember replacing water pumps pretty regularly too.
All of the cars I have had since the 80s have started first time, EFI baby, never, ever have overheated, have highly efficient A/C units that are almost unoticeable on or of as far as the drain on the engine is concerned and have never let me down . And I cover about 20-30000km per year as a sales rep. Oh and the use less fuel and are less polluting.
Interesting thing you mention about carbies. Not only less fuel efficient but constantly need to be tuned by experts to achieve their best performence. And they have cokes too huh? Pricks they are on cold mornings. All that aside there are plenty of older cars I like even if they are not as functional as newer ones.

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 04:01 PM

Thats ok as long as you dont have many places to go.
No, not many. No long trips or long commute to work. If I did have to drive 50 miles (or whatever) to work everyday, I couldn't afford to drive my Caddys. Not to work, at least.

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 04:03 PM

I may have mentioned this before :confused: but does this mean, as far as you are concerned, that if we cant control the uncontrollable, then we should give up on trying to control what is controllable?
No, don't give up. Have reasonable controls, but don't scare everybody saying that, because we exist, we are going to kill the planet!

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 04:04 PM

Your average mileage is. What about the people who hold onto old cars and do drive them thousands of mile a year. Older cars use more fuel and pollute more. Thats the fact. How far you drive is irrelevant as there will also be drivers of new cars that onnly cover nominal miles a year and they will pollute less than you and use less fuel.
I think that people should have the freedom to drive what they want to drive.

crisis

02-28-2005, 04:08 PM

I think that people should have the freedom to drive what they want to drive.
How about a tank.

jcp123

02-28-2005, 04:13 PM

There's one guy in Britain who does drive a tank...

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 04:15 PM

Well lets trade individual pointless anecdotes then shall we? I have owned about thirteen cars as far as I can remember. The old ones, pre 80s, troublesome on cold mornings due to the neccessity of a choke on the carby. so you can have the pleasure of restarting it a few times on your way to work. More prone to overheating due to underdeveloped cooling systems. Power draining A/C units due to older design. Need to replace spark plugs every 5-10000 ks. Points, how quaint. I seem to remember replacing water pumps pretty regularly too.
All of the cars I have had since the 80s have started first time, EFI baby, never, ever have overheated, have highly efficient A/C units that are almost unoticeable on or of as far as the drain on the engine is concerned and have never let me down . And I cover about 20-30000km per year as a sales rep. Oh and the use less fuel and are less polluting.
Interesting thing you mention about carbies. Not only less fuel efficient but constantly need to be tuned by experts to achieve their best performence. And they have cokes too huh? Pricks they are on cold mornings. All that aside there are plenty of older cars I like even if they are not as functional as newer ones.
Adjusting the choke (by a good mechanic) should solve the problem of stalling. None of my four Cadillacs stalls at any time during warm-up. Probably because the chokes are set by a mechanic who knows how.

I wonder... how are the cooling systems "underdeveloped?" The radiator on my '66 Dart was huge- 3 core and physically large. Probably because it was equipped with a/c. As with chokes, a cooling system, assuming it's kept up, will give no problems. I've owned my '71 Fleetwood Brougham for 9 years- not once did it overheat. It did need the thermostat replaced because the heater wasn't warm enough, but replacing a thermostat on a classic car is a snap.

Power draining with the a/c on would depend on the car. On a 6-cylinder Nova or something like that, you would notice a difference. On one of my Cadillacs, you can't even tell when the a/c is on or not! It irons out hill-climbing almost like they don't exist.

Spark plugs last quite a while on old cars- a friend's 1984 Ford LTD went 80,000 miles on the original set. Points, which can be changed and adjusted in about 25 minutes, last reasonably long. Certainly no big deal. I'd rather change points on a classic car than a timing belt on a new car! BTW, that's another BIG advantage of classic cars- a timing chain, which usually will last almost forever.

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 04:17 PM

How about a tank.
If it's street legal, that's their choice. But I don't think many people will drive one. One exception... at the weekly (Friday night) car gathering I go to, one guy actually drove a tank to it! A real tank. You never can tell what you'll see. :)

crisis

02-28-2005, 04:25 PM

Adjusting the choke (by a good mechanic) should solve the problem of stalling. None of my four Cadillacs stalls at any time during warm-up. Probably because the chokes are set by a mechanic who knows how.

I wonder... how are the cooling systems "underdeveloped?" The radiator on my '66 Dart was huge- 3 core and physically large. Probably because it was equipped with a/c. As with chokes, a cooling system, assuming it's kept up, will give no problems. I've owned my '71 Fleetwood Brougham for 9 years- not once did it overheat. It did need the thermostat replaced because the heater wasn't warm enough, but replacing a thermostat on a classic car is a snap.

Power draining with the a/c on would depend on the car. On a 6-cylinder Nova or something like that, you would notice a difference. On one of my Cadillacs, you can't even tell when the a/c is on or not! It irons out hill-climbing almost like they don't exist.

Spark plugs last quite a while on old cars- a friend's 1984 Ford LTD went 80,000 miles on the original set. Points, which can be changed and adjusted in about 25 minutes, last reasonably long. Certainly no big deal. I'd rather change points on a classic car than a timing belt on a new car! BTW, that's another BIG advantage of classic cars- a timing chain, which usually will last almost forever.
With EFI I dont need to pay a good mechanic to adjust the choke.
Power draining is power draining, you feel it more in smaller engines but you pay for it just as much whenyour not feeling it.
Well it takes no time to adjust points or replace them with EFI. Never needed to look at a timing belt, seeing we are only talking personal experience.

crisis

02-28-2005, 04:29 PM

If it's street legal, that's their choice. But I don't think many people will drive one. One exception... at the weekly (Friday night) car gathering I go to, one guy actually drove a tank to it! A real tank. You never can tell what you'll see. :)
You see I disagree with all of this idealistic freedom. If you had met or seen some people I have seen you woldnt trust them to tie their shoes. Idiot drivers, people who drive agressively and want to get out and hit you if they think you have deliberatly tried to annoy them on the road, people who smoke in cars with their kids, of course your basic low lifes who have no respect for other people. I dont htink they should be allowed to drive what they like because they are only concerned with their own welfare. Unless we can be assured that everyone will show some responsiblity fot ehir actions and act unselfishly then I dont think they shoul dbe able to drive what they like. Because some of them would drive tanks.

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 04:44 PM

With EFI I dont need to pay a good mechanic to adjust the choke.
Power draining is power draining, you feel it more in smaller engines but you pay for it just as much whenyour not feeling it.
Well it takes no time to adjust points or replace them with EFI. Never needed to look at a timing belt, seeing we are only talking personal experience.
But EFIs can clog up, can't they? And I'm sure they cost MUCH more to repair or rebuild than a typical carb.

A/C drains power from any car- even a new one. Any car that has a/c and a compressor is going to need horsepower to operate it.
Here are some test results of a '69 Pontiac Grand Prix. (Motor Trend, Oct., 1968).
Engine/hp/rear axle ratio....... 428/370/3.23:1
Transmission....................... 3-speed auto.

Acceleration....................... With a/c on.....W/out a/c on
0-30 mph........................... 3.6 secs......... 3.4 secs
0-45 mph........................... 6.0................ 5.5
0-60 mph........................... 9.5................ 8.5
0-75 mph........................... 14.0.............. 12.4
1/4 mile............................. 17.0 @ 83....... 16.5 @ 86
Passing: 40-60 mph............. 5.0................. 4.2
50-70 mph............. 5.3................. 5.0

Now, of course, it's faster with the a/c off, but it still has good acceleration with it on (and only 3 mph slower in the 1/4 mile).

jcp123

02-28-2005, 04:46 PM

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 04:48 PM

Never needed to look at a timing belt, seeing we are only talking personal experience.
To change a timing belt, you need to take quite a few things off the engine to get to it... fan belts, water pump, probably radiator for access, timing chain cover... To get to points, all you need to remove is the distributor cap!
Guess which is easier. :D

CdocZ

02-28-2005, 04:48 PM

Uh...having to replace points has nothing to do with EFI, that's a completely different thing. I don't have points anymore, I shouldn't have to replace them ever again. And I adjust my own carburetors.

There is a company.......made an electronic carb that adjusted itself depending on airflow and how much you stepped on the gas, plus you could set it for certain types of driving (for example, you want to race, set it to "aggresive" mode, or if you want to just roll around the block, set it at "standard".)

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 04:49 PM

Uh...having to replace points has nothing to do with EFI, that's a completely different thing. I don't have points anymore, I shouldn't have to replace them ever again. And I adjust my own carburetors.
Yeah, but what about your a/c that drains power from the engine! ;)
I mean, it may lower your 1/4 mile mph from 86 to 83 mph. Big danger there!

jcp123

02-28-2005, 04:51 PM

Yeah, I don't have a/c...at least not until I get the Cad. I've pretty much decided I'm going to sell my Stang and get a Cad.

CdocZ

02-28-2005, 04:52 PM

Yeah, I don't have a/c...at least not until I get the Cad. I've pretty much decided I'm going to sell my Stang and get a Cad.

Can I have the mustang? :p

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 04:54 PM

Yeah, I don't have a/c...at least not until I get the Cad. I've pretty much decided I'm going to sell my Stang and get a Cad.
Really? A '58 or another year?

jcp123

02-28-2005, 04:55 PM

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 05:22 PM

Yes. Pay me :p

a '66 Vert, '63 Vert, '64 Eldo Vert, and a '58 are my front-runners. But any one from '58-'74 with a/c is on the list. Preferably a Vert, Coupe deVille, or Fleetwood 60S, in that order. Special points will be awarded to a 75 if i can find one too.
Okay, a donation is on the way. ;)

You made some good choices there.
One of my Cadillac friends owns a '63 Eldorado Biarritz Convertible (beige); it's not for sale though.
I recommend a Fleetwood Brougham or Convertible (or Fleetwood 75). FB's probably being the most affordable.

Seventy-Fives show up for sale more often than you would think considering that much less were made than the other models. So keep (or start) looking!

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 05:24 PM

Can I have the mustang? :p
Lol. You sound like Ralph Malph from Happy Days...

Ralph: "Is that your Ferrari outside?"
New auto repair shop owner: "Yes, it is."
Ralph: "Can I have it?"
:D

jcp123

02-28-2005, 05:39 PM

Okay, a donation is on the way. ;)

You made some good choices there.
One of my Cadillac friends owns a '63 Eldorado Biarritz Convertible (beige); it's not for sale though.
I recommend a Fleetwood Brougham or Convertible (or Fleetwood 75). FB's probably being the most affordable.

Seventy-Fives show up for sale more often than you would think considering that much less were made than the other models. So keep (or start) looking!

Yeah, I'm going by whatever comes first that I like that my budget allows. I'm looking to spend about $8k. I'm hoping for a vert, but they get pretty pricey, so who knows. I really should have snapped up that '66 convertible I saw though. Baby blue with matching interior, the guy put a 472 in, and there wer some other new bits too. It was a paltry $7800.

Matra et Alpine

02-28-2005, 05:41 PM

To change a timing belt, you need to take quite a few things off the engine to get to it... fan belts, water pump, probably radiator for access, timing chain cover... To get to points, all you need to remove is the distributor cap!
Guess which is easier. :D
:confused"
The timing belt is a task you may have to face in old and new cars.
Besides, on Ford CVH's, BDAs and Pintos it's 4 bolts ( 2 of whiich most people leave off along with the top part of the cover ). Similar with Vauxhall and Rover.

Points only in old.

Not sure what you were meanign to get over Fleet ?

If it's the use of modern rubber/compsite belts instead of chains in older cars, they're still there and still need replaced :(

Matra et Alpine

02-28-2005, 05:43 PM

There is a company.......made an electronic carb that adjusted itself depending on airflow and how much you stepped on the gas, plus you could set it for certain types of driving (for example, you want to race, set it to "aggresive" mode, or if you want to just roll around the block, set it at "standard".)
Yah and theere was the automatic choke as well.
After a few years all the smarts packs !!
Everyeon converted Ford auto chokes back to manual.
Smarts and carbs dont' work well. Smarts are good for digital, not so hot for complex analog :)

Ideal ? sneak an electrion ignition pack into the classic and get the best of both :)

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 06:08 PM

:confused"
The timing belt is a task you may have to face in old and new cars.
Besides, on Ford CVH's, BDAs and Pintos it's 4 bolts ( 2 of whiich most people leave off along with the top part of the cover ). Similar with Vauxhall and Rover.

Not sure what you were meanign to get over Fleet ?

If it's the use of modern rubber/compsite belts instead of chains in older cars, they're still there and still need replaced :(
There were only timing chains (not belts) in old cars (but it depends on what is considered "old").
Timing belts are supposed to be changed every 60,000 miles. For timing chains, since they are much stronger then belts and last a long time, there is no recommended change period.

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 06:12 PM

Yah and theere was the automatic choke as well.

Ideal ? sneak an electrion ignition pack into the classic and get the best of both :)
The electric choke (factory) on my '76 limo works fine.
Back when I owned my '66 Dart, I put on a Carter 500 cfm AFB 4-bbl carb. It came with an automatic electric choke. Worked great- car never stalled with it. One of my brothers liked using the manual choke which he had on his '66 Plymouth Fury III (318 V-8 engine).
I also did put an electronic ignition on my Dart. I noticed that when I bought my '70 Sedan de Ville, it already had electronic ignition (they were introduced on Cadillacs in the '75 model year).
My '69 Fleetwood Brougham has points but I'm not going to bother converting to E.I. since it's not driven enough to warrant a change.

jcp123

02-28-2005, 08:13 PM

I put EI into my 302, one of the few electronic devices that's really paid off. It also has manual choke, but it hardly works. My engine is docile enough, though, that it really doesn't need a choke.

I'm more of a manual choke guy, there's always something goin wrong with the electric chokes on our other ones too (although since mine doesn't work either, I guess I can't say much). One's a Carter AFB, probably 500cfm, the other's a 670 Holley Street Avenger.

crisis

02-28-2005, 09:09 PM

crisis

02-28-2005, 09:10 PM

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 10:23 PM

Guess which you have to do more reguilarly?
With the low mileage I put on my cars, about once every 1 and 1/2 to 2 years. And it takes all of 20 minutes (and less than $10.00 for new points).
I'll take points over a timing belt anyday!

crisis

02-28-2005, 10:25 PM

With the low mileage I put on my cars, about once every 1 and 1/2 to 2 years. And it takes all of 20 minutes (and less than $10.00 for new points).
I'll take points over a timing belt anyday!
Ive only had to replace and adjust points so I guess I dont really know. :)

Fleet 500

02-28-2005, 10:51 PM

Be glad of that! :)

Fleet 500

03-01-2005, 01:43 PM

what are you basing this opinion on? your general distate for the French, or Europeans in General? The French are a proud people, not unlike the U.S in that sense, and have a good sense of their position in the world, The French should not be considered as the ones who have done the wrong in this situation, THEY were following protocol. with an attitude like that GWB should of just stayed at home.
Somehow, I missed this post.
Yes, the French are very good at surrendering!
They also were still trading with Iraq even though there was an embargo.

clutch-monkey

03-01-2005, 02:25 PM

Yes, the French are very good at surrendering!
They also were still trading with Iraq even though there was an embargo.

you forget that most of WW1 was fought on french soil. after devastation like that, you wonder why they weren't so zealous the next time round.

Fleet 500

03-01-2005, 02:38 PM

you forget that most of WW1 was fought on french soil. after devastation like that, you wonder why they weren't so zealous the next time round.
I know that, but it was their own country that was being invaded! You would think that when their own country is at stake, they would be zealous! You would also think the French would be grateful for the help the U.S. and Britain gave (including the help which resulted in many dead U.S. and British soldiers).

clutch-monkey

03-01-2005, 02:55 PM

I know that, but it was their own country that was being invaded! You would think that when their own country is at stake, they would be zealous! You would also think the French would be grateful for the help the U.S. and Britain gave (including the help which resulted in many dead U.S. and British soldiers).

i suppose, but i'm just saying that the french were considerably weakened by the time WW2 started. their government made a lot of wrong decisions because they were trying to prevent another war (thats hardly cowardice), and as a result were not able to match the germans. i just think terms like "surrender-monkey" are a bit misjudged.

Fleet 500

03-01-2005, 04:23 PM

Yes, I did intend to mention that the French army was no match for the German army. That said, France sure has a strange way of "thanking" the U.S. and Britains. Didn't France not allow U.S. planes to use their bases in the first Gulf War?

Matra et Alpine

03-01-2005, 04:56 PM

There were only timing chains (not belts) in old cars (but it depends on what is considered "old").
Timing belts are supposed to be changed every 60,000 miles. For timing chains, since they are much stronger then belts and last a long time, there is no recommended change period.
huh ?
Yes there is, as chains stretch too and can then jump.
Are you saying they have not put ANY mileage on the service workshop manual for your older cars to check and replace if necssary the chain ?
I remember the days of using a micrometer to check for chain stretch :)

Did a quick check on one of the club sites and found In "it states that the timing chain on the 16v 2ltr should be replaced at service every 120000 km (~75000 miles )" that's for the Ford Scorpio which uses a CHAIN.

Matra et Alpine

03-01-2005, 04:58 PM

That said, France sure has a strange way of "thanking" the U.S. and Britains. Didn't France not allow U.S. planes to use their bases in the first Gulf War?
That confuses doing someting LEGAL for a friend and breaking the law for a friend !!!
Always if you look to French actions you see their justice system at work wher equality and egality are important for all of the people all fo the time.

Fleet 500

03-01-2005, 06:07 PM

huh ?
Yes there is, as chains stretch too and can then jump.
Are you saying they have not put ANY mileage on the service workshop manual for your older cars to check and replace if necssary the chain ?
I remember the days of using a micrometer to check for chain stretch :)

Did a quick check on one of the club sites and found In "it states that the timing chain on the 16v 2ltr should be replaced at service every 120000 km (~75000 miles )" that's for the Ford Scorpio which uses a CHAIN.
My family owned a '70 Cadillac (Coupe de Ville) from 1988 to 2002. The timing chain was not touched during this time, even though the car had just passed the 200,000 mark (and was 32 years old).

I drove my '66 Dart from 1979 until 2002. It had an engine rebuild in 1990 only because it was burning oil. But, there was never any problem with the timing chain.

In fact, none of the cars myself or my family owned has had any problems with timing chains. Yes, they can jump, but that rarely happens. And they can stretch, but that, too, rarely affects the car's running to such a degree in which it would need adjustment.

No '50s/'60s/'70s American car I've heard of had a recommended interval for replacing timing chains. (Late model cars don't count!) :D

As I said, I'll take a timing chain over a timing belt anyday!

Fleet 500

03-01-2005, 06:11 PM

That confuses doing someting LEGAL for a friend and breaking the law for a friend !!!
Always if you look to French actions you see their justice system at work wher equality and egality are important for all of the people all fo the time.
Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait, the U.S. and her allies went to the aid of Kuwait, France would not let their aircraft bases be used by the U.S. and her allies.

IBrake4Rainbows

03-01-2005, 10:39 PM

Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait, the U.S. and her allies went to the aid of Kuwait, France would not let their aircraft bases be used by the U.S. and her allies.

We've been through this in another thread.

The US had to choose her ally: the Kuwaitis, who were good to the Americans, or the Iraqis, who were also relatively friendly with the Americans before the first Gulf War (The US even pardoned a missile attack on one of it's ships in the Gulf back in 1984, i believe.

And who says France SHOULD of let their bases be used for what they percieved as an unjust attack.

Fleet 500

03-01-2005, 11:43 PM

We've been through this in another thread.

The US had to choose her ally: the Kuwaitis, who were good to the Americans, or the Iraqis, who were also relatively friendly with the Americans before the first Gulf War (The US even pardoned a missile attack on one of it's ships in the Gulf back in 1984, i believe.

And who says France SHOULD of let their bases be used for what they percieved as an unjust attack.
The 1991 Gulf War (whose purpose was to push the Iraqis out of Kuwait) was unjust? Are you saying we should have let Iraq invade Kuwait?
I think you are confusing the '91 Gulf War with the '03 War w/Iraq (of which the latter was also justified because Saddam/Iraq broke international rules!

IBrake4Rainbows

03-01-2005, 11:48 PM

No. What i'm confusing is that America can somehow pick and choose it's allies as it needs them, the whole Use em and Dump em scenario.

Giving weapons and cash to Afghani rebels fighting off Russia in the 80's?

Choosing between two countries in the GW1?

You guys need to learn that every action has it's consequences, why didn't you get rid of Saddam during the first war, when public opinion was actually on your side?!

you've never actually answered that question fully.

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 01:00 PM

You guys need to learn that every action has it's consequences, why didn't you get rid of Saddam during the first war, when public opinion was actually on your side?!

you've never actually answered that question fully.
Yes, I have answered it. The U.N. advised the U.S. (and allies) to free Kuwait, but don't go into Iraq and finish off the Iraqi army and oust Saddam. Unfortunately, we listened to the U.N.

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 01:02 PM

No. What i'm confusing is that America can somehow pick and choose it's allies as it needs them, the whole Use em and Dump em scenario.
Generally, the allies of the U.S. are also the allies of other nations like Great Britain and Australia.
Exactly which allies had the U.S. "dumped?"

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 01:05 PM

Giving weapons and cash to Afghani rebels fighting off Russia in the 80's?

Of course the U.S. (and allies) helped Afghanistan fight Russia. It was during the Cold War! Russia was actually set to invade that country! Do you think we should have helped Russia spread communism throughout Asia and Europe?!?

IBrake4Rainbows

03-02-2005, 01:36 PM

Generally, the allies of the U.S. are also the allies of other nations like Great Britain and Australia.
Exactly which allies had the U.S. "dumped?"

erm, the Afghanis, the Iraqis, the Russians (WW2)...........

IBrake4Rainbows

03-02-2005, 01:39 PM

Of course the U.S. (and allies) helped Afghanistan fight Russia. It was during the Cold War! Russia was actually set to invade that country! Do you think we should have helped Russia spread communism throughout Asia and Europe?!?

I don't believe in Communism, but it's interesting to see that America chose not to tackle this threat head-on, leaving it to the People of Afghanistan (With U.S. armamants) to fight off the threat. And didn't America invade the country in the end, thus spreading capitalism?

Again just because it's different doesn't make it wrong.

So let me get this straight: the UN told the US and her allies during GW1 NOT to get rid of a Maniacal dictator who would kill so many people? If you expect me to believe this you've got another thing coming.

Matra et Alpine

03-02-2005, 02:40 PM

Matra et Alpine

03-02-2005, 02:50 PM

My family owned a '70 Cadillac (Coupe de Ville) from 1988 to 2002. The timing chain was not touched during this time, even though the car had just passed the 200,000 mark (and was 32 years old).
On e quick google and we find an 81 caddi owner reporting
"with only 92,000 original miles I have had to replace .....Timing Chain and sprocket"

Accepted that he clearly expected it to last longer.

Just making sure the whoel one example doesn't become a raison d'etre for people not checking things accordign to service guidleines.,

BTW, do you still have your saervice manual ? A look through it will show the maintainance schedule for CHECKING it at least if not for regular replace.

BTW, I was shocked to see that a modern caddi has the drive belt SCHEDULED to be REPLACED every 15,000 miles !!! ( the above google again )

Don't know the engine Fleet, but another example from the google ....
1967 convertible Listed: 01/17/2005
For Sale - NC - 1967 Cadillac Convertible, 66K, good project car to restore, engine runs, has new: timing chain
66,000 miles and it's had a new chain.

one common point I saw in that google search was a lot of talk about a time when they had nylon on the sprockets to keep the noise down and that they were a failure mode.

Matra et Alpine

03-02-2005, 03:16 PM

Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait, the U.S. and her allies went to the aid of Kuwait, France would not let their aircraft bases be used by the U.S. and her allies.
The Iraqis owed Kuwaits billions for loans given during the 1980s, yet, they argumented that they fought the war against Iran also in Kuwaiti interests, and consequently they expected the Kuwaitis - which saw considerable prosperity through the same time - to forget about their money. It was also a question of the traditional Iraqi politics to repeat its claims for Kuwait being a part of Iraq, and this was done several times already in 1989. In July 1990, Iraqis accused - with right - Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil and selling it at low prices, thus damaging the Iraqi economy. Soon after, Baghdad started a diplomatic offensive against the country, as well as several other Gulf states. With more readiness for negotiations, perhaps the armed conflict could have been averted already at the time, but neither Kuwait nor Iraq were ready to give up, and in the spring of 1991 the first concentrations of the Iraqi Army units were noticed along the northern Kuwaiti borders. By July, the situation was very tense, and the Iraqis finally understood the quiet stance of the USA in the matter as a sign that the Americans would not oppose their attack against Kuwait: indeed, despite warnings from own intelligence services and the Saudis about an Iraqi attack being imminent, the US government publicly sent the carrier battle group around the USS Independence (CV-62, with the carrier air wing CVW-14 aboard), away from the Persian Gulf, and would not change this decision even after the last round of negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait failed, on the evening of 1 August 1990

American hands are not clean over the battles in that region !!!!

It's best not to try to climb the moral high ground if the WHOLE situation is reviewed :(

WRT France you must remember that they had learned lessons from as far back as the Ottoman empire on how NOT to act in the area !!

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 03:20 PM

So let me get this straight: the UN told the US and her allies during GW1 NOT to get rid of a Maniacal dictator who would kill so many people? If you expect me to believe this you've got another thing coming.
You should believe it because that's exactly what happened. I followed that war closely and it was because of the U.N. that Bush I decided not to follow through and remove Saddam. BTW, why does it sound like we should have done it then but not in 2003?

IBrake4Rainbows

03-02-2005, 03:23 PM

You should believe it because that's exactly what happened. I followed that war closely and it was because of the U.N. that Bush I decided not to follow through and remove Saddam. BTW, why does it sound like we should have done it then but not in 2003?

because you had the chance back then.

Because you could of saved this entire war with your actions back then.

And until some proof is offered i highly doubt what happened.

the U.S. thought if it started an uprising within the civilan population it would be enough.

The civilians were slaughtered, and the U.S. just kept pulling back.

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 03:25 PM

On e quick google and we find an 81 caddi owner reporting
"with only 92,000 original miles I have had to replace .....Timing Chain and sprocket"

Accepted that he clearly expected it to last longer.

Just making sure the whoel one example doesn't become a raison d'etre for people not checking things accordign to service guidleines.,

BTW, do you still have your saervice manual ? A look through it will show the maintainance schedule for CHECKING it at least if not for regular replace.

BTW, I was shocked to see that a modern caddi has the drive belt SCHEDULED to be REPLACED every 15,000 miles !!! ( the above google again )

Don't know the engine Fleet, but another example from the google ....
1967 convertible Listed: 01/17/2005
For Sale - NC - 1967 Cadillac Convertible, 66K, good project car to restore, engine runs, has new: timing chain
66,000 miles and it's had a new chain.

one common point I saw in that google search was a lot of talk about a time when they had nylon on the sprockets to keep the noise down and that they were a failure mode.
You must be getting desperate! :D
Cadillac built well over 150,000 cars/year in the '60s, and you cite ONE example in which the timing chain was replaced! Yeah, 66,000 miles, but *37* years old! Oh, and one more (big deal) example of an '81. Two cars out of hundreds of thousands. (BTW, a '67 Caddy has the 429 engine; my '69 has the 472.)

I do have a '76 shop manual; I'm still checking ebay for a manual for my '69.

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 03:28 PM

because you had the chance back then.

Because you could of saved this entire war with your actions back then.

And until some proof is offered i highly doubt what happened.

the U.S. thought if it started an uprising within the civilan population it would be enough.

The civilians were slaughtered, and the U.S. just kept pulling back.
Yet another example why the U.N. today is an ineffective organization.
Why are you blaming the U.S.? I can imagine how many people would have been howling in protest if the U.S. did go into Iraq in '91 and removed Saddam. They would have said the same thing they are saying today (no U.N. approval, unjust, illegal, and all that other garbage).

As for wanting proof, if you know your history, you wouldn't have to ask! ;)

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 03:31 PM

The Iraqis owed Kuwaits billions for loans given during the 1980s, yet, they argumented that they fought the war against Iran also in Kuwaiti interests, and consequently they expected the Kuwaitis - which saw considerable prosperity through the same time - to forget about their money. It was also a question of the traditional Iraqi politics to repeat its claims for Kuwait being a part of Iraq, and this was done several times already in 1989. In July 1990, Iraqis accused - with right - Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil and selling it at low prices, thus damaging the Iraqi economy. Soon after, Baghdad started a diplomatic offensive against the country, as well as several other Gulf states. With more readiness for negotiations, perhaps the armed conflict could have been averted already at the time, but neither Kuwait nor Iraq were ready to give up, and in the spring of 1991 the first concentrations of the Iraqi Army units were noticed along the northern Kuwaiti borders. By July, the situation was very tense, and the Iraqis finally understood the quiet stance of the USA in the matter as a sign that the Americans would not oppose their attack against Kuwait: indeed, despite warnings from own intelligence services and the Saudis about an Iraqi attack being imminent, the US government publicly sent the carrier battle group around the USS Independence (CV-62, with the carrier air wing CVW-14 aboard), away from the Persian Gulf, and would not change this decision even after the last round of negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait failed, on the evening of 1 August 1990

Iraq had NO right to invade Kuwait. The whole world (well, almost) were strongly against it.

IBrake4Rainbows

03-02-2005, 03:32 PM

IBrake4Rainbows

03-02-2005, 03:34 PM

Iraq had NO right to invade Kuwait. The whole world (well, almost) were strongly against it.

Your right, they didn't.

But they felt they had the support of one of their major allies, the U.S.

Matra et Alpine

03-02-2005, 03:47 PM

You must be getting desperate! :D
Cadillac built well over 150,000 cars/year in the '60s, and you cite ONE example in which the timing chain was replaced! Yeah, 66,000 miles, but *37* years old! Oh, and one more (big deal) example of an '81. Two cars out of hundreds of thousands. (BTW, a '67 Caddy has the 429 engine; my '69 has the 472.)
PLEASE FLee, grow up.

I ONLY poisted that as a counter to the one you did as it was EQUALLY valid is it not ?

FFS, you just dont' get the point.

Oh and the "one more" big deal " is SO HYPOCRITICAL as you've based MANY argumetres on PRECISELY THAT !!!!

So get the brain in gear, realise that one post from EITHER side measn nothing - as that is waht it was MEANT to show and get back to the main issue. ........
I do have a '76 shop manual; I'm still checking ebay for a manual for my '69.
The '76 will do, what does it say abotu checking tension intervals, replacing tensioner interval and inspecting chain length or replacing chain ?

Matra et Alpine

03-02-2005, 03:50 PM

Iraq had NO right to invade Kuwait.
Does Israel have the right to hodl the West Bank ?
The seperation of Kuwait and Iraq ( and Iran ) was a map drawn up bythe British and Frenc.
There IS a legitimate "historical claim" for the land to be Iraq and that cannot be ignored.
IF the US had stood strong ( equally others too ) at the time of the upheavel after the Iran/Iraq war and had NOT given a sign that it didnt' car then Iraq MAY have got the point that whether a historical claim existed or not was down to the Internationl courts and the UN to decide . NOT for one nation to take it inot its own hands !!!

aNOBLEman

03-02-2005, 04:49 PM

I heard that we didn't get Saddam the first time because there was a large Iraqi convoy that was retreating towards Baghdad and ground forces and air forces attacked and destroyed almost all of the convoy. Some of the media said that the convoy was defenseless, while military personel said that the Iraqis fired at them. Anyway when the media showed footage of the carnage it greatly swayed public opinion against doing anymore fighting. Not sure if this is true or not, but I think that I heard this on the History Channel.

kko

03-02-2005, 06:28 PM

one common point I saw in that google search was a lot of talk about a time when they had nylon on the sprockets to keep the noise down and that they were a failure mode.

A friend of mine had An older american car, nova maybe? ANd it had nylon sprokets, they were wuiet but when it got cold they had a tendency to break and shatter.

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 06:57 PM

I ONLY poisted that as a counter to the one you did as it was EQUALLY valid is it not ?

FFS, you just dont' get the point.

Oh and the "one more" big deal " is SO HYPOCRITICAL as you've based MANY argumetres on PRECISELY THAT !!!!

So get the brain in gear, realise that one post from EITHER side measn nothing - as that is waht it was MEANT to show and get back to the main issue. ........

The '76 will do, what does it say abotu checking tension intervals, replacing tensioner interval and inspecting chain length or replacing chain ?
So, according to your brain, because 2 Cadillacs out of hundreds of thousands built needed a timing chain replaced, it means that they are a frequently-replaced item? C'mon... something like thermostats need replacing much more often than a timing chain. As I originally said, they usually last a long time, and it takes a long time for them to stretch (like 15-20 years). And they certainly last longer than a timing belt. Also, if a timing belt breaks while the engine is running, it can cause serious damage to the valves. With a timing chain, all that happens is the the engine won't start/run, but no damage to the engine.

I'm still looking for the '76 shop manual. :) I've got car books and magazines all over the place.

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 07:25 PM

I'll ask because it's not been shown (In this argument) what the UN did during the First GW, other than let it happen.

And why is the UN an ineffective organisation. It's as effective as it's members let it be, when one country chooses to ignore the UN and do what "It feels was the right thing".

And i am blaming the US because you guys had the bloody chance to get right of him FIRST TIME AROUND! it's not like you ever listen to the UN anyway, why did you then?

I can imagine actually, how many people would be relieved back then, you guys had so much support, and you blew it.

Then, when you try again, you find support has waned.

And don't talk to me about history, you obviously know nothing about French history.
Appeasers insist on U.N. authorization as a pre-condition to American military action. In other words, emasculate the U.S. and delegate most of our vital decisions about self-defense and national security to other nations. I don't think so- the day the America cedes its defenses to a foreign power is the day the U.S. ceases to be a soverign nation.
The U.N. is out of control, wasteful and corrupt and I'll give you a few examples...

One U.N. employee in Mali embezzled $560,000 before he was caught. Another in Kenya siphoned off $368,000.
In September of 1994, the U.N. decided to scrap a $938,000 headquarters security system that had never been used. The staff union held up the activation of the turnstile system that would read electric ID cards, claiming fear of health hazards from radio waves.
The real reason? The turnstiles' clocks could record the exact time the employees arrived and departed.

The U.N. as a body is demonstrably corrupt, peopled heavily by inhuman dictators who cannot be trusted for a moment to act in defense of the greater good.
As Stephen Schwartz has written, "The U.N. is not the nations of the world united. It is an enterprise located in a building in New York, with satellite operations around the world, employing a certain cadre of people of many nationalities, most of whom are time-servers and ideologues." Schwartz, who has had six years experience in postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, describes the U.N. employees he has witnessed as follows:
"They have a strong prejudice against privatization, and too many are chosen for economic responsibilities hail from Sweden and other countries where statist socialism remains the political regime." So how can anybody have a blind allegiance to this organization?

As for the French, yes they have had a rich history during the 20th century!

Matra et Alpine

03-02-2005, 07:29 PM

So, according to your brain, because 2 Cadillacs out of hundreds of thousands built needed a timing chain replaced, it means that they are a frequently-replaced item?
LOOK wil you PLEASE read befor eposting next time.
I ACUTALLY DID EXPLAIN IT in simple English.
You are leading us all to believe you are illiterate adn stupid.
I'm sure you're not so PLEASE go back and read it again.

I SAID, it was in response to you citing a couple of examples and claiming that was the case.
How come you can expect it of othres and NOT of yourself ?
That reaks of HYPOCRISY.
Measure yourself by the yardstick you woudl apply to others !!
C'mon... something like thermostats need replacing much more often than a timing chain. As I originally said, they usually last a long time, and it takes a long time for them to stretch (like 15-20 years). And they certainly last longer than a timing belt.
Tha latter wasn't debated. GENREALLY dhains last longer than belts.
Never said otherwise.
I've only been trying to ascertain the service intervals in the service manual for the cars.
Also, if a timing belt breaks while the engine is running, it can cause serious damage to the valves. With a timing chain, all that happens is the the engine won't start/run, but no damage to the engine.
WHAT A LOAD OF ****ING BALLS.
IF ANY timing linkage breaks then you can get a mess.
I can assure you having just had to rebuild a brand new BDA because we fitted too long a bolt in the cam retain strap !!
You REALLY have such a lack of knowledge and HIGH opinion of your own views that it blkinds you to commoon sense.
You confuse multi valve high compression, high valve lift and chain or belt.
Any of the former can cause a WHOLE mess if piston hits valve.
Not sure of LS-1. but there are MANY pushrod engines which can do the same.
Had a Mini shear a rocker and fire a pushrod through the bonnet when a valve hit the piston !!
AS has been aid before Fleet, sometimes you should keep quiet and only be thought the idiot :(
I'm still looking for the '76 shop manual. :) I've got car books and magazines all over the place.
That's OK.
*I* undesrtand and will give you plenty of time - you perhaps should act equally thoughtfully perhaps :)

Matra et Alpine

03-02-2005, 07:41 PM

Appeasers insist on U.N. authorization as a pre-condition to American military action. In other words, emasculate the U.S. and delegate most of our vital decisions about self-defense and national security to other nations.
You even USE the word sof the neo-conservatist scare-mongerers !!!
Why does a PEACEFUL act involve "emascualtion" ?
It's that whole macho john wayne image that causes half the problems :)
I don't think so- the day the America cedes its defenses to a foreign power is the day the U.S. ceases to be a soverign nation.
OK. So how was Iraq attacking the US ?
ALREADY been proven NO Iraqis were involved in 9/11.
Mainly Saudis - why not attack Saudi ???
You confuse defense and aggresion.
AND besides ALL of those should be undertaken under International Law.
Sadly the US is running over all of them and seems suprised that many nations AND Americans are angry at the lack of regard for "legal rights".
The U.N. is out of control, wasteful and corrupt and I'll give you a few examples...
....
The U.N. as a body is demonstrably corrupt, peopled heavily by inhuman dictators who cannot be trusted for a moment to act in defense of the greater good.
And that above clearly indicates YOU shoudl not be allowed to vote to decide the leader of a nation.
Let me see, Fahrenheit 9/11 and all of Moores work are biased and only point out the negative and dont' mention any of the positive.
Oh look. you're the Michael Moore of the right wing in THIS post :(
Waken up and stop acting so partisan that logic and reasoning has left you.
NOBODY said the UN was perfect.
NOBODY says the US is perfect ( pauses for Fleet to respond 'yes' :) )
As Stephen Schwartz has written, "The U.N. is not the nations of the world united. It is an enterprise located in a building in New York, with satellite operations around the world, employing a certain cadre of people of many nationalities, most of whom are time-servers and ideologues." Schwartz, who has had six years experience in postwar Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, describes the U.N. employees he has witnessed as follows:
"They have a strong prejudice against privatization, and too many are chosen for economic responsibilities hail from Sweden and other countries where statist socialism remains the political regime." So how can anybody have a blind allegiance to this organization?
oh man, gerat quote on Sweden.
Clearly the man is a clown.
"statist socialism" so actually what he REALLY means is not everyone in the UN is a right wing republican or fascist. THANK GOD for small mercies :)
You are reading such biased claptrap you need to take a "balance pill".
As for the French, yes they have had a rich history during the 20th century!
Yeah and before, like ensuring a win in the war of Indpendance.
I think THAT is what sticks ins rednecks' throats you know.
That historically it was France's efforts that ensure th success of the revolution. It hurts those blind patriots that it needed outside help.
( No offense to the 99% of Americans who respect hsitory )
BUT Seriously Fleet, you're needing to do some "archibald technique" on the French. Modern civilisation owes as much to France as it does to the Greeks, Romans and Brits !! We thank America for McDonalds :)

Matra et Alpine

03-02-2005, 07:48 PM

PS; Is the Stephen Swartz you cite the smae one this article talks of.
AND are the FACTS about his poliotical affiliations switching true ???

tephen Schwartz is, nevertheless, a particularly instructive example of the interventionist lobby at work. On day 2 of the bombing, no sooner had I turned on my television set but there he was, on a local cable news channel, BayTV, ranting about how the United States has to liberate the Serbian people. As a former fellow traveler of the Spartacist League -- a Trotskyist sect that used to show up at demonstrations in the eighties with banners proclaiming Hail Red Army in Afghanistan! -- he wound up in the neoconservative orbit. Associated with the Institute for Contemporary Studies, the unofficial thinktank of the arms industry, Schwartz landed a job at the San Francisco Chronicle. He would often show up at the informal conservative journalist’s roundtable that Bill Rusher used to preside over at the Union Club on San Francisco’s Nob Hill, trying to convince a rtaher skeptical bunch of right-wingers of the virtues of labor unions and telling stories of his leftist past. He bitterly denounced Bay Area Stalinists who he insisted were out to get him: according to him, he lived in perpetual fear of his job due to the all-pervasive atmosphere of political correctness in the newsroom. I hadn’t seen Schwartz in years, but there he was as I turned on the television, calling for an all-out American effort and confidently predicting victory over Serbia in a week. The KLA is a heroic band of freedom fighters, like the contras in Nicaragua, he explained, and the Serbians are like the Nazis. Considering reports about the Marxist leadership and ideology of the KLA, from hailing the Red Army to hailing the Kosovo Liberation Army is not all that long a road to travel. A scant two hours later, there he was again, whooping it up for war, this time on MSNBC. Clearly enjoying his soapbox, Schwartz boasted about how many times he had been to Bosnia, and declared that he would soon be leaving the Chronicle for an unspecified position in the Bosnia-Kosovo region -- whether as minister in charge of propaganda for the NATO army of occupation he did not say. In both appearances, the host had introduced him as Stephen Schwartz, of the San Francisco Chronicle. What the they had tactfully left out was that his reporting has been confined to the obituary page of that newspaper, where he specializes in paeans to departed San Francisco leftists and avante garde artistes. It is only natural, in times such as these, that a writer of death notices is instantly elevated to the role of a national spokesman and expert.

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 08:06 PM

LOOK wil you PLEASE read befor eposting next time.
I ACUTALLY DID EXPLAIN IT in simple English.
You are leading us all to believe you are illiterate adn stupid.
I'm sure you're not so PLEASE go back and read it again.

I SAID, it was in response to you citing a couple of examples and claiming that was the case.
How come you can expect it of othres and NOT of yourself ?
That reaks of HYPOCRISY.
Measure yourself by the yardstick you woudl apply to others !!

Tha latter wasn't debated. GENREALLY dhains last longer than belts.
Never said otherwise.
I've only been trying to ascertain the service intervals in the service manual for the cars.

WHAT A LOAD OF ****ING BALLS.
IF ANY timing linkage breaks then you can get a mess.
I can assure you having just had to rebuild a brand new BDA because we fitted too long a bolt in the cam retain strap !!
You REALLY have such a lack of knowledge and HIGH opinion of your own views that it blkinds you to commoon sense.
You confuse multi valve high compression, high valve lift and chain or belt.
Any of the former can cause a WHOLE mess if piston hits valve.
Not sure of LS-1. but there are MANY pushrod engines which can do the same.
Had a Mini shear a rocker and fire a pushrod through the bonnet when a valve hit the piston !!
AS has been aid before Fleet, sometimes you should keep quiet and only be thought the idiot :(

That's OK.
*I* undesrtand and will give you plenty of time - you perhaps should act equally thoughtfully perhaps :)
You sure are the excitable type! :)
From what I've read (and heard) the overhead cam type of engines can suffer major damage if a timing belt breaks while the engine is running. The "hearing" part is from listening to a car-type radio talk show which is on the air every Sunday morning. The host, a mechanic who owns a shop, has at least 40 years experience working on cars. A caller once asked him if it's necessary to change at timing belt on a car he owned which had about 70,000 miles. The host answered that it would be a good idea to change it as soon as possible because if it breaks it can cause expensive engine damage. I'm just relying on info I heard (by a professional mechanic). A neighbors early '70s Chevy full-sized station wagon once had it's timing chain break while driving down a road. He had it towed home, he pulled the broken timing chain and put in a new one and the car ran fine again.

Okay I found the '76 shop manual (which kind of surprised me finding it so fast). Anyway, there is no mention of any kind of maintenence for the timing chain. It recommends checking/adjusting the engine timing every 22,500 miles and changing the transmission fluid & filter every 100,000 miles (50,000 miles for severe driving), but nothing about timing chains. Since you've made me curious, I am going to ask a Cadillac Mailing List I belong to and will report back here.

Matra et Alpine

03-02-2005, 08:14 PM

You sure are the excitable type! :)
You woudl be too if you had to deal with your prattlings :)
From what I've read (and heard) the overhead cam type of engines can suffer major damage if a timing belt breaks while the engine is running. A neighbors early '70s Chevy full-sized station wagon once had it's timing chain break while driving down a road. He had it towed home, he pulled the broken timing chain and put in a new one and the car ran fine again.
So let me repeat.

YOU had the audacity to hassle me over citing a copule of examples of chains needing replaced and then in your next post you JUSTIFY a point of view about what damage can and cannot be done to engines based on ONE example.

Get off your sorry lazy fat arse and find out enough BROAD EXPERIENCE to be able to say anything else from now on.

You're SO insecure you won't take any other comments from anyone else that you dont like to hear. I gave you examples - one of them only a few weeks ago sadly - of what CAN happen to both types of engines.
Based on experience. But you see, NOW I just KNOW you'll demand examples and become SO anal about it that you will reek.

What a pr@t. :(

It really is VERY insightful Fleet and frankly lets just end this NOW.

You dont' DESERVE anyone to spend time explaining things to you.

So live your secluded, delude existence.

I dont' care anymore.
Okay I found the '76 shop manual (which kind of surprised me finding it so fast). Anyway, there is no mention of any kind of maintenence for the timing chain. It recommends checking/adjusting the engine timing every 22,500 miles and changing the transmission fluid & filter every 100,000 miles (50,000 miles for severe driving), but nothing about timing chains. Since you've made me curious, I am going to ask a Cadillac Mailing List I belong to and will report back here.
I dont' give a flying f * * k any more with you.
You are the WORST example of American that exists on the net.
I've tried to hepl, explain gone to great lengthts to TRY to help YOU.
The start of your post was the final straw.

Go away.

Fleet 500

03-02-2005, 08:18 PM

OK. So how was Iraq attacking the US ?
ALREADY been proven NO Iraqis were involved in 9/11.
Mainly Saudis - why not attack Saudi ???
You confuse defense and aggresion.
AND besides ALL of those should be undertaken under International Law.
Sadly the US is running over all of them and seems suprised that many nations AND Americans are angry at the lack of regard for "legal rights".

NOBODY said the UN was perfect.
NOBODY says the US is perfect ( pauses for Fleet to respond 'yes' :) )

oh man, gerat quote on Sweden.
Clearly the man is a clown.
"statist socialism" so actually what he REALLY means is not everyone in the UN is a right wing republican or fascist. THANK GOD for small mercies :)
You are reading such biased claptrap you need to take a "balance pill".

Modern civilisation owes as much to France as it does to the Greeks, Romans and Brits !!
C'mon, you're smarter than that, aren't you? Iraqi was known for being a nation which harbored terrorists. One of the terrorists we were fighting (that Zowkari, or however his name is spelled) was injured in Afghanistan and was treated in a hospital in Iraq (Baghdad).
Saddam paid the families of homicide bombers $25,000.

The U.N. is corrupt, the U.S. isn't. Big difference there.

Yeah, you don't agree with that man, so he's a "clown." I assume you've had more experience in the U.N. than the six years' experience Schwartz has had? :confused:

And modern France owes it's civilization to the U.S., Britain and other allied countries who saved it two times in the 20th century!