Europe Loves The Mustang

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:12:51 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:28:39 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:15:24 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:47:54 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>>>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:59:43 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:46:29 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>>>>>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:27:27 GMT, the guvnor
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:12:43 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>By 2015, the bank predicts, "Chinese consumers will likely have
>>>>>>>>>displaced US consumers as the primary engine of global economic
>>>>>>>>>growth."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/stor...509375,00.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Doesn't fit any definition of "Hyperpower " I've ever read....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"A hyperpower is a powerful country that is vastly stronger than any
>>>>>>>>potential rival.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See China's domination of world trade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has
>>>>>>>>been the world's only superpower.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The unique position of the United States (at least in terms of
>>>>>>>>military force)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See America not even being able to win the Vietnam war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let me know when you have any hard facts to support your contention
>>>>>>that China is a hyperpower.
>>>>>>---
>>>>>Well they do have a certain level of power since the are a nuclear
>>>>>nation and the people are a little hyper in their attempts to eek out
>>>>>an existence as a subsidence farmer.
>>>>
>>>>Go look up " Hyperpower".
>>>>
>>>Go look up humor
>>
>> Go look up the Guvnor.
>>
>Look I was being nice. I could arrange the ******* to come to visit
>ya personal like.

You can? Good. I'll be waiting for the asshole at DCA. Let me
know when he'll be arriving. He's going to get a very "memorable"
welcome to Washington DC.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:07:28 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:47:29 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:23:41 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:49:25 -0400, Sarah Czepiel >
>>>wrote something wonderfully witty:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 07:02:51 -0400, America the Beautiful
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>the guvnor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:46:36 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:29:45 -0400, G > wrote
>>>>>>>something wonderfully witty:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If Europe " loves the Mustang " it's because it's cheap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cheap is relative to others in the class. Right now the Europeans
>>>>>>>don't really have anything to compete against it at its price point
>>>>>>>even with tariffs & VAT. Plus it is American muscle admired and
>>>>>>>lusted for since the very first version back in `64.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Admired and lusted over for it's van style suspension?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever wondered why that despite being cheap and nasty, American cars
>>>>>> still don't sell?
>>>>>
>>>>>Somebody's buying them.....
>>>>
>>>>Guvnor's favorite car cover....
>>>>http://img82.echo.cx/img82/9456/norespect1rk.jpg
>>>>
>>>Isn't an Opel a GM product?
>>
>>It's covered in bird **** and you can tell what kind of car that is???
>>HAHAHAHA!!
>>
>Sure, look at it. It says it rather clearly. About the only place
>the birds haven't shat.

My best friend in HS had an Opal Manta - Yellow and black. Looked
like an enormous bumble bee. Ugliest car on the road but stood out in
the crowd. We got T-boned one summer when the other driver claimed
he never saw us. Go figure. And yes, I think Opel is under the GM
roof.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:13:48 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 08:02:24 GMT, the guvnor
> wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 01:25:06 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Quality European cars don't rust.
>>>>
>>>And which ones would they be, the ones now owned by American Car
>>>Companies like GM, Ford & Chrysler?
>>
>>This would be the Chrysler owned by Mercedes?
>>
>Yeah the one with it's World HQ's in Ny, NY.

"The headquarters of DaimlerChrysler, which houses the Board of
Management and the central CEO support staffs, is located in
Stuttgart-Möhringen."

http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom...-0-0-0,00.html

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:06:19 -0400, ZombyWoof >
wrote:

>>
>>CPO Jacobs brought up the nuclear option. I finished it.
>>
>>China isn't going to launch a first strike on the United States
>>because they wouldn't survive it.
>>
>>No need to go " boots in" when everything is molten glass.
>>
>Being as we are the only country to ever exercise a nuclear option,
>why did we go "boots in" into Japan after WW II and their surrender?

I would think the answer to that is obvious. We only had two nuclear
weapons in our inventory and used both of them on two cities in Japan
and neither one was the capitol of power. In any scenario involving
the Chinese attacking us with ICBMs we would strike back with hundreds
if not thousands of nukes in ensure they would never be able to hit us
again.

"Ken Ehrett" > cross-posted, offtopic in
message
---snip the off-topic, cross-posted message---
>

please stop cross-posting your off-topic comments to groups
that don't care about your subject.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:43:50 -0700, Woo > wrote:

>
>
>Ken Ehrett wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:06:19 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>CPO Jacobs brought up the nuclear option. I finished it.
>>>>
>>>>China isn't going to launch a first strike on the United States
>>>>because they wouldn't survive it.
>>>>
>>>>No need to go " boots in" when everything is molten glass.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Being as we are the only country to ever exercise a nuclear option,
>>>why did we go "boots in" into Japan after WW II and their surrender?
>>
>>
>> I would think the answer to that is obvious. We only had two nuclear
>> weapons in our inventory and used both of them on two cities in Japan
>> and neither one was the capitol of power. In any scenario involving
>> the Chinese attacking us with ICBMs we would strike back with hundreds
>> if not thousands of nukes in ensure they would never be able to hit us
>> again.
>>
>
>And what do you think the rest of the world would be doing during all this?

Cowering in a corner like they do now.



--------

Message-ID: .com>


BOB wrote:
>> Sarah Czepiel > wrote in

>>I know you haven't a clue about QED, but "scumbag" is so commonly
>>used by people who no longer can hold their own in an argument.

> That's you all right, scumbag.

LOL! Of course, BOB is too clueless to realize that he walked right
into that one!


Curtis

--------

"Ken Ehrett" > wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:40:51 GMT, the guvnor
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:46:36 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:29:45 -0400, G > wrote
>>>something wonderfully witty:
>>>
>>>>If Europe " loves the Mustang " it's because it's cheap.
>>>>
>>>Cheap is relative to others in the class. Right now the Europeans
>>>don't really have anything to compete against it at its price point
>>>even with tariffs & VAT. Plus it is American muscle admired and
>>>lusted for since the very first version back in `64.
>>
>>Admired and lusted over for it's van style suspension?
>
> We have been over this before but I guess those fat cells in your head
> prevented any of the information from sinking in. Ford makes a GT and
> Mach 1 with solid rear ends because these cars were designed for
> quarter mile drag racing.

Bwaaaahaaaaa!! One of my neighbours had a Mach 1, it's one of the ugliest
piece of wannabe Russian tank I've ever seen, although it's unfair to the
tanks. The bodywork is a joke, the steering and suspension is hilarious.
In the end, after spending all his time and money on every type of failure
in the book, he scrapped the leaking useless "power steering" and relied
on his muscles.
Finally he sold the sorry excuse for a car to an unknowing optimist and
got himself a boat instead.


> The Mustang Cobra has independent
> suspension for people who like to drive on the tight curves of rural
> roads.

No wonder you fat ****ers are killed in huge numbers after loosing
control of your 'cars' when exceeding 50 Km/h.


*Webzpider*


Homo AmericAnus :
N onthinking
R ectumsniffing
A nthropoids

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:59:03 -0700, Woo > wrote:

>
>
>Sarah Czepiel wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:43:50 -0700, Woo > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Ken Ehrett wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:06:19 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>CPO Jacobs brought up the nuclear option. I finished it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>China isn't going to launch a first strike on the United States
>>>>>>because they wouldn't survive it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No need to go " boots in" when everything is molten glass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Being as we are the only country to ever exercise a nuclear option,
>>>>>why did we go "boots in" into Japan after WW II and their surrender?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I would think the answer to that is obvious. We only had two nuclear
>>>>weapons in our inventory and used both of them on two cities in Japan
>>>>and neither one was the capitol of power. In any scenario involving
>>>>the Chinese attacking us with ICBMs we would strike back with hundreds
>>>>if not thousands of nukes in ensure they would never be able to hit us
>>>>again.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And what do you think the rest of the world would be doing during all this?
>>
>>
>> Cowering in a corner like they do now.
>>
>
>You never really were clued up to reality, were you.

What did the rest of the world do when we went into Iraq? Nothing.
Reality is you did nothing but make minor manuveurs to make our job a
bit more difficult but you're never going to stop us because we're a
superpower.



--------

Message-ID: .com>


BOB wrote:
>> Sarah Czepiel > wrote in

>>I know you haven't a clue about QED, but "scumbag" is so commonly
>>used by people who no longer can hold their own in an argument.

> That's you all right, scumbag.

LOL! Of course, BOB is too clueless to realize that he walked right
into that one!


Curtis

--------

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:59:15 -0700, Woo > wrote:

>
>
>Sarah Czepiel wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:59:03 -0700, Woo > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Sarah Czepiel wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:43:50 -0700, Woo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ken Ehrett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 09:06:19 -0400, ZombyWoof >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>CPO Jacobs brought up the nuclear option. I finished it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>China isn't going to launch a first strike on the United States
>>>>>>>>because they wouldn't survive it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No need to go " boots in" when everything is molten glass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Being as we are the only country to ever exercise a nuclear option,
>>>>>>>why did we go "boots in" into Japan after WW II and their surrender?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would think the answer to that is obvious. We only had two nuclear
>>>>>>weapons in our inventory and used both of them on two cities in Japan
>>>>>>and neither one was the capitol of power. In any scenario involving
>>>>>>the Chinese attacking us with ICBMs we would strike back with hundreds
>>>>>>if not thousands of nukes in ensure they would never be able to hit us
>>>>>>again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And what do you think the rest of the world would be doing during all this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cowering in a corner like they do now.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You never really were clued up to reality, were you.
>>
>>
>> What did the rest of the world do when we went into Iraq? Nothing.
>
>You never were short of sifile material, were you.

?

Sifile?

>> Reality is you did nothing but make minor manuveurs to make our job a
>> bit more difficult but you're never going to stop us because we're a
>> superpower.


--------

Message-ID: .com>


BOB wrote:
>> Sarah Czepiel > wrote in

>>I know you haven't a clue about QED, but "scumbag" is so commonly
>>used by people who no longer can hold their own in an argument.

> That's you all right, scumbag.

LOL! Of course, BOB is too clueless to realize that he walked right
into that one!


Curtis

--------

Ken Ehrett wrote:

> In any scenario involving
> the Chinese attacking us with ICBMs we would strike back with hundreds
> if not thousands of nukes in ensure they would never be able to hit us
> again.

That makes me feel so safe. Los Angeles and San Francisco and Seattle
wiped out -- millions of casualties. But those damn commie chinks will
learn their lesson. Their casualties will certainly be much worse.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.