Jump to content
Yes, it's a 2 stroke. 4 strokes are still way too heavy.
And the "exemption" you speak of is not exactly true. The EPA allows manufacturers to rate large segments of their fleet. So if they sell other vehicles that are above the standards they can sell a few that are below the standard... and it's THEIR standard. We all know what that means after yesterdays supreme court ruling, don't we?
Is there state sales tax on my car insurance? On a new or used car purchase? On the oil change at Grease Monkey? On tires? On wiper fluid, auto parts and on rental car fees?
Good grief. I even pay highway fuel tax on the fuel I burn in my snowmobile 20 miles from the nearest road!!
Actually, no. I do not think the state takes on much liability at all. ZERO on the production and distribution of gasoline, but it absolutely makes more $$$ from each gallon than oil companies.
Liability on roads is NOT liability on gasoline. If they don't like the liability on roadways, they can sell them to toll operators and hire out the plowing and paving. I'm guessing the new "owners" might have less "workers" propping up shovels on the roadside.
Besides, they also get registration fees, etc.
Why not admit it, George? It's a scam. We are already being ripped off, and instead of expanding revenue sources and kicking the stupid sage chickens to the curb, they continue to pile their increasing load on fewer and fewer "load-bearers".
If you love the darned chickens so much, ask them for the stinkin $$$.
Government already makes several times more "profit" off gasoline than Exxon does. And Exxon takes the liability from Prudhoe Bay all the way to your gas tank, meaning the state takes NONE!. What a deal...
If gubbamint would get out of the way and let business breath (oil and all others), and if they stopped diverting gasoline tax to studying shrimps on treadmills, they would already HAVE enough revenue for highways.
When you choose Sage Grouse over Exxon, you are going to get the kind of revenue Sage Grouse pay instead of the amount Exxon can pay. Why don't they go ask the Sage Grouse for some $$$$.
Widen the road and ticket left lane slow-pokes.
Supreme Court agreed with Karl yesterday. (And so do I).
It held that the EPA was wrong to dole out edicts without doing cost/benefit analysis, and that the cost benefit ratios it used in the case were WRONG.
The figures I heard were that the new regs would cost about $10 BILLION and save about $10 MILLION. Sadly, this economic model has become S.O.P for Uncle Scam.
Cost does not matter to these folks, Karl. It is their religion.
Don't vets sell goat tranquilizers?
"...dumb enough to get yourself attacked..." was the context, Pat. Nobody said a gun would have helped or hurt their chances of survival, Pat. Just that the whole concept that becoming a victim of an attack means one is "dumb" is absurd.
Since you are "dumb enough" to defend this indefensible drivel, I will go you one better and say I'll treat you the same way. And let's make it interesting: Say $10,000?? Since I'm not really keen on gambling I will donate it to a charity that helps victims who were "dumb enough" to get attacked. If I lose, you can do whatever you want with your winnings. Zat sound fair?
But I want to collect before you are "dumb enough" to get killed by some attacker; so let's say 1 year. If you agree, I'll put it on my calendar, we can pick a mediator to keep track and write it up, just so memories don't drift.
Nicole Brown Simpson
Martin Luther King, Jr
"The only time use of a gun is justified is if you are dumb enough to get yourself attacked by someone with a deadly weapon, and you can't flee."... "dumb enough to get yourself attacked..." --Dan Shores
That is quite possibly both the dumbest AND most insensitive (I hate that word) thing I have ever read.
From this moment forward I will consider Dan Shores comments void of all intellect and reason, and I will never again engage him in any way.
I agree with almost everything you say, Robert. Especially "...The most dangerous country in the Middle East is Pakistan and they already are Nuclear."
That's why another Islamic nuclear state is a bad deal.
The only thing I disagree with is the part about not expecting anything to change. Iran will make Pakistan look like Britain.
As far as Israel goes, If every Islamic nation in the region declared that tomorrow it would lay down it's arms and not fight no matter what happened, Israel would do NOTHING. If Israel declared that tomorrow morning it would lay down its arms and not fight no matter what, they would be attacked within 24 hrs. You KNOW this. I KNOW this. Therefore, Israel is NOT the problem in the region... period.
Radical Islamists with nukes will be the undoing of the entire globe. The only bright spot is that if we allow Iran to obtain bona-fide nuclear capability there is absolutely, positively no need whatsoever to worry about global warming.
Last login: Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.