preparing for new driver - liberty?
04-27-2007, 07:17 AM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
(I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
Cheers
Ryan
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:21:53 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> But suppose you run into her driving '69 Lincoln, head on one of your
>high speed turns?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
(I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
Cheers
Ryan
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:21:53 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> But suppose you run into her driving '69 Lincoln, head on one of your
>high speed turns?
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
04-27-2007, 07:23 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
family!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com...
> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>
> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>
> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ryan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
family!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com...
> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>
> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>
> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ryan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
04-27-2007, 07:23 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
family!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com...
> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>
> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>
> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ryan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
family!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com...
> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>
> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>
> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ryan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
04-27-2007, 07:23 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
family!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com...
> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>
> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>
> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ryan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
family!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com...
> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>
> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>
> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ryan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
04-27-2007, 07:23 PM
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
family!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com...
> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>
> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>
> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ryan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
family!
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com...
> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>
> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>
> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>
> Cheers
>
> Ryan
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
04-27-2007, 09:29 PM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
Good day,
As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
I too want the best for them by every means.
I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
Is it done to just **** people like you off?
No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
they can't/don't have any performance...
Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
tonne BS.
Have a nice weekend.
Ryan Heibloem
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:23:47 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
>three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
>have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
> What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
>trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
>do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
>an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
>the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
>physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
>family!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com.. .
>> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
>> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>>
>> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
>> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
>> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
>> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
>> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
>> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
>> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
>> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
>> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
>> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
>> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
>> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
>> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>>
>> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
>> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
>> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ryan
As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
I too want the best for them by every means.
I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
Is it done to just **** people like you off?
No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
they can't/don't have any performance...
Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
tonne BS.
Have a nice weekend.
Ryan Heibloem
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:23:47 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
>three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
>have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
> What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
>trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
>do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
>an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
>the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
>physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
>family!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com.. .
>> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
>> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>>
>> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
>> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
>> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
>> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
>> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
>> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
>> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
>> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
>> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
>> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
>> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
>> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
>> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>>
>> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
>> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
>> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ryan
04-27-2007, 09:29 PM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
Good day,
As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
I too want the best for them by every means.
I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
Is it done to just **** people like you off?
No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
they can't/don't have any performance...
Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
tonne BS.
Have a nice weekend.
Ryan Heibloem
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:23:47 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
>three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
>have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
> What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
>trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
>do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
>an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
>the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
>physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
>family!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com.. .
>> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
>> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>>
>> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
>> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
>> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
>> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
>> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
>> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
>> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
>> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
>> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
>> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
>> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
>> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
>> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>>
>> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
>> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
>> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ryan
As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
I too want the best for them by every means.
I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
Is it done to just **** people like you off?
No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
they can't/don't have any performance...
Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
tonne BS.
Have a nice weekend.
Ryan Heibloem
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:23:47 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
>three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
>have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
> What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
>trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
>do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
>an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
>the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
>physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
>family!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com.. .
>> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
>> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>>
>> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
>> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
>> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
>> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
>> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
>> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
>> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
>> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
>> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
>> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
>> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
>> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
>> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>>
>> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
>> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
>> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ryan
04-27-2007, 09:29 PM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
Good day,
As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
I too want the best for them by every means.
I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
Is it done to just **** people like you off?
No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
they can't/don't have any performance...
Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
tonne BS.
Have a nice weekend.
Ryan Heibloem
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:23:47 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
>three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
>have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
> What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
>trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
>do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
>an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
>the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
>physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
>family!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com.. .
>> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
>> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>>
>> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
>> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
>> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
>> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
>> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
>> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
>> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
>> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
>> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
>> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
>> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
>> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
>> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>>
>> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
>> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
>> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ryan
As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
I too want the best for them by every means.
I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
Is it done to just **** people like you off?
No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
they can't/don't have any performance...
Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
tonne BS.
Have a nice weekend.
Ryan Heibloem
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:23:47 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
>three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
>have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
> What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
>trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
>do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
>an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
>the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
>physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
>family!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com.. .
>> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
>> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>>
>> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
>> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
>> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
>> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
>> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
>> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
>> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
>> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
>> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
>> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
>> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
>> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
>> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>>
>> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
>> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
>> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ryan
04-27-2007, 09:29 PM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
Good day,
As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
I too want the best for them by every means.
I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
Is it done to just **** people like you off?
No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
they can't/don't have any performance...
Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
tonne BS.
Have a nice weekend.
Ryan Heibloem
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:23:47 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
>three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
>have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
> What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
>trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
>do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
>an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
>the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
>physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
>family!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com.. .
>> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
>> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>>
>> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
>> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
>> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
>> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
>> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
>> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
>> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
>> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
>> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
>> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
>> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
>> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
>> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>>
>> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
>> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
>> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ryan
As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
I too want the best for them by every means.
I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
Is it done to just **** people like you off?
No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
they can't/don't have any performance...
Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
tonne BS.
Have a nice weekend.
Ryan Heibloem
Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:23:47 -0700, "L.W. \(Bill\) ------ III"
<----------@***.net> wrote:
> Have you raised a daughter? I just wanted mine to live, so she got a
>three ton learner. After a couple of years without killing anyone, she could
>have bought a murdercycle, if she wished.
> What a stupid research done by bleeding heart liberal whacko limps,
>trying to sell on dinky little cars, which when run into a concrete barrier
>do, OK with their built in sacrificial crush zones, but when hit head on by
>an REAL American car find themselves going backwards and the same speed as
>the car they unfortunately hit. A basic law of kinetic, inertia energy in
>physics. You greenies may kill your offspring, for Bore's causes, but not my
>family!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
>
>"Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:bgj33392ak28dirprkgok9dit3hvroutag@4ax.com.. .
>> We are talking about a "Daily driver" here.
>> There still is nothing wrong with a Jeep Liberty for that purpose.
>>
>> And suppose that you Mr. ------ The Third, were driving "that" '69
>> Lincoln (with suicide doors of course), and were unfortunately
>> involved in that " head on" accident with a Jeep Liberty? Chances are
>> (I've done extensive research on the Internet and in independent
>> sources over the past 25 years regarding automotive collisions that
>> cause bodily harm) that indicates that the occupants of the " 1969
>> Ford/Mercury Lincoln would be critically injured or a fatality due to
>> the fact that the grossly inadequate lap belts were even used !
>> Back then an automobile was built for aesthetics, not safety.
>> Today's vehicles are designed with safety first. And that's a fact!
>> That's why airbags were implemented, for all you folks below the 49th
>> parallel who do not "think" a seatbelt is necessary and "I won't get
>> into an accident because I'm a better driver than the rest"
>>
>> So, now, at the end of the day... What is wrong with a Jeep Liberty
>> for a young lady who just aced her drivers licence exam and is more
>> than likely going to use it as a daily driver?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ryan
04-27-2007, 09:54 PM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: preparing for new driver - liberty?
They would build REAL cars, if the Environmental Protection Agency,
wouldn't strangle the Big Three. Except for the a few that may transport
seven members of a family in their full sized station wagons such as the
Aviator, Escalade, Suburban, Yukon, Tahoe, Jimmy, Blazer, Explorer,
Expedition, Excursion. Notice even the nicer Toys are sneaking in a half ton
truck. I'll pray for your daughters, that they don't lose control and cross
over to meet: http://www.----------.com/bronco4.jpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- "Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mq6533pkniab1b6j5d2d0pusd8o0e87f2t@4ax.com...
> Good day,
>
> As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
> I too want the best for them by every means.
> I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
> millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
> If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
> automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
> Is it done to just **** people like you off?
> No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
> plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
>
> We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
> matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
> Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
> they can't/don't have any performance...
> Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
> Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
> That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
> tonne BS.
>
> Have a nice weekend.
>
> Ryan Heibloem
> Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
wouldn't strangle the Big Three. Except for the a few that may transport
seven members of a family in their full sized station wagons such as the
Aviator, Escalade, Suburban, Yukon, Tahoe, Jimmy, Blazer, Explorer,
Expedition, Excursion. Notice even the nicer Toys are sneaking in a half ton
truck. I'll pray for your daughters, that they don't lose control and cross
over to meet: http://www.----------.com/bronco4.jpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- "Socks" <socks09@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mq6533pkniab1b6j5d2d0pusd8o0e87f2t@4ax.com...
> Good day,
>
> As a matter of fact, I am raising two daughters!
> I too want the best for them by every means.
> I therefore will give them a vehicle that is designed in this
> millennium, using tomorrows technology today.
> If ancient American cars are so safe, why is it that no U.S.
> automobile manufacturer doesn't build 'em like they used too?
> Is it done to just **** people like you off?
> No, it is done because new cars are safer, more efficient, and just
> plain old far superior than yesteryears vehicles.
>
> We can discuss this until we are blue in the face, but the fact of the
> matter is that new automotive technology is superior.
> Look at diesel powered cars. Most North American's still think that
> they can't/don't have any performance...
> Then you have Audi and their R10 in the 24 heures du Mans.(The 24
> Hours of Le Mans) A diesel ! And Audi kicked every bodies ***.
> That was today's (German) technology. Not antiquated has been three
> tonne BS.
>
> Have a nice weekend.
>
> Ryan Heibloem
> Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
