Military Industrial Complex

[Terry Mauro]

Terry wrote:

How low can you go folks, while you lamely accept the $2.77 a gallon rip-off to fill your gas-guzzling SUV's and Hummers?

According to the April 1, 2005 New York Times, there is indeed a link between the car a person drives and his or her voting patterns.  Can't create a link now, will try later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to the April 1, 2005 New York Times, there is indeed a link between the car a person drives and his or her voting patterns. Can't create a link now, will try later.

I presently drive a 1994 Ford XLT Ranger p/u truck, 5-speed manual transmission, 4 cylinder engine, that gets 27 - 30 miles to the gallon, depending on whether on the street, or on the freeway. It's been quite dependable, expecially from its utilitarian aspect. And, being that I live within walking distance of my job, I only have to fill it every one or two months.

Now, if I did have to make a long commute to a job like I've had to in the past, I would still invest in a 4 cylinder economy line p/u , manual transmission, due to its versatility, although I'd be more interested in a hybrid engine if available in that specific model.

I would never drive an automatic, especially in a 4 cylinder, due to the lack of power and loss of maneuverability inherent in an automatic transmission as it ages. I want to feel as if I'm driving the vehicle, and not as if the vehicle is driving me. I've been able to keep my vehicles up to 13 years by maintaining them with 3000 mile oil changes, and sometimes more frequently depending on

the time span as opposed to mileage, simply because oil gets old, like anything else. Always maintain your electrical, radiator, tire wear, and abide by the required tune-ups necessary for all-over proper functioning, as well.

I guess that puts me in the poor slob category of voter, as opposed to the young, upwardly mobile and affluent, presently purchasing their high-end SUV's.

You know, it's kind of ironic if you think about it. These soccer moms and off-road

enthusiasts insist on driving these most treacherous of vehicles which are known for their propensity to flip over so easily, and the high auto insurance rates that accompany these vehicles are mainly due to the frequency of broken axles that occur when the off-roaders think they can climb small mountains with these 4-wheel drives that weren't meant to perform like earth moving equipment or John Deere caterpillar tractors. Just my HO, though.

Edited April 2, 2005 by Terry Mauro

[Terry Mauro]

Scientists tell us that humans and chimps are 99 percent genetically identical. I'm not sure that is true. Judging by these controlled political systems we're talking about, I'm more and more convinced that humans are more closely related to sheep than to chimps. I don't think chimps would stand for this stuff.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm more and more convinced that humans are more closely related to sheep than to chimps. I don't think chimps would stand for this stuff

That's why many in the research community refer to them as "Sheeple", Ron.

But, I think "Lemming" is more appropriate. You know, those little artic rodents that will follow blindly en masse, off a cliff into the frozen waters.

Here's the description from my Funk and Wagnall's Encyclopedia Dictionary circa 1958. Yes, that's right folks. I also don't believe in further atrophying my mind by using "Spell-Check".

lemming (lem'ing) n. Any of several small arctic rodents, having a short tail and furry feet; esp., a European species, noted for recurrent mass migrations often terminated by drowning in the ocean. [< Norw.]