"Bbbbbbut I thought terrorists had endorsed Obama. At least that is what right-winger told us a couple of months ago, I am so confused."

Thats why he didn't fire.

"did that fucking Danni kill Santa and make him go through a lot of pain in the process?"

No that was handled by the clinton taxes.

"The right should be grateful the Press goes so easy on McCain. He's made so many horrible gaffs, and the Press lets him slide"

And how many states are there again?

Just little ol' me confusing cauliflower with electrolytic fruit juices.

"Thanks for the information. I thought that because the M16 was based on the design of the AR-15 (right?) that it had similar stopping power, even though it uses different caliber ammunition. I guess this isn't exactly the case"

They are virtually identical. The biggest difference is that most ar's are semi auto. The m-16 is the military designation and in essence they fire the same round and and an AR-15 can fire nato rounds. The stoping power is the same, not much. Our soldiers want a larger caliber bullet and they are currently testing some. The problem is the .223 or 5.56mm is a .22 caliber bullet something between 45 and 65 grains traveling at 3300 feet per second they blow through the target without imparting all of their energy.

"But it is apparent that it is none."

From you own example
55 42.5
60 48.4
65 43.5

Oh oh whats that more efficient at 60 and 65 than 55 five? Did you even look?

Now i never said all cars are better at 75 i said my lincoln was and mentioned a few trucks that weren't. But you just proved me right again with the celica how much further are you willing to dig?

And did you notice that table i provided that you posted that there is only a minute difference between 55 and 60 and that includes truck which emphasize the drag effect in far greater proportion than cars.
Go ahead keep proving me right i don't mind at all.

"Now some high end sports cars may in fact be more efficient at higher speeds."

Now you're getting it, but you have to apply that same concept to other cars as well, not all but still a substantial amount.

"Why are we so upset that Iran is trying to build a 'tool'? Could it be because it facilitates murder."

We are upset because the are hostile. This is a completely different circumstance. If the were giving a gut to a radical and violent youth then it would be an issue but that is simply not what would have happened.

"The science does not support it."
You obviously don't even know what that means.

"So how do you think they did a test on a 2005 Ford in 1997? "

Wow, you are an idiot. I post a government issued study that was done in 97 which is the most current i have found from the dept of energy and you counter with a story that is no more scientific than my personal experiences then claim it as accurate as the DOE's. You have no grasp on reason nor averages if you don't see that having vehicles under 55 would require those over 55 to average 55.

I cannot link to a study as they are all pay per use. However, i have provided the results of the DOE study which averages all vehicles and hit 55 on average it does not take a genius to figure that one out. I have also pointed out my own examples which are probably as scientific as your links, now you may call me a liar thats fine but you do this with out proof or evidence to the contrary. You have fallen to your last resort, repeat, repeat, repeat and attack me on another thread, it is time to give it up.

"Tell me again just how that agrees with your assertion."

Hmm, maybe because i have repeatedly tried to help you understand that trucks and suv skew the averages. Maybe because it is so prominent in larger vehicle and the average is still 55 it must mean that many are better above. Maybe because singling out one vehicle especially one not known for economy and applying the result across the board is at best a logical fallacy.

"If I'm gonna kill an intruder, I want the most powerful weapon I can get my hands on."

No, you want one that will minimize collateral damage. A .223 will go through a few walls and who knows whats is beyond. I still think a good old .45 with hollowpoints or a shotgun would be best fore defense.

"Why do you need a semiautomatic rifle with that kind of power?"

First the .223 is not a very powerful round it has less energy than a 30-30 and even the 7.63x39 AK round beats it by a coupla hundred fpe. Second it is used in many marksmanship contests. Thirdly a semiautomatic is more fun to shoot in my opinion due to a larger magazine and added speed over a bolt or break action. And just to split some hairs the .223 or military 5.56 was deigned to clutter the lines with wounded not dead. As far as self defense goes, i don't like the AR, too small a bullet at to high a speed but they are effective, where as you bolt actions are to long to use in a enclosed environment as well as too powerful.

"It's only a cartoon! But Obama adds that New Yorker cover insults Muslims"

Well at least he is admitting that he not only insults the intelligence of his constituency but depicting him a a Muslim insult the entire religion.

"Oh, and before you bring up statistics on how the vast majority of people using guns are only doing so for sport: are you willing to bet your childrens' lives on that? Because I sure as hell wouldn't be."

So what would you have me do? Send them to a concrete bunker where no harm can come to them? Facts are they are much more likely to be hit by a car, applying your fear to only one object would seem almost counterproductive. Yes, the vast majority are s used for sport and yes there are some that would misuse them but keeping everything that could be misused out of the publics hands is an asinine concept.

"You can't."

Nor can you guarantee the when he gets a car he won't run into a group of fellow students. I have know many a guy that has owned rifles since they were a teen, i myself have. I gave a mossin nagent to my kid brother at 15, he has yet to shoot up a school. Tragedies will happen but walking through life at a snails pace wearing a suit of bubble wrap is no way to live. You worr about the negatives but fail to see the positives. What if it get a kid into competitive shooting and he becomes an olimpic marksman or a military sniper? I understand the reaction to assume the worst, but i would give a little more credit to the kids and the organizers.
It does not say how old these kids were, at 18 they could buy it them selfs. If you want a gun you can get one either legally or black market. There is no way to keep all illegal items out of the hands of those that will commit crimes. Taking them out of the hand of the innocent only serves to punish those who walk a law abiding path.

Ahh, so what you are saying by your links is agreeing with me. If you combine the suv and the car the "optimum" mileage at speed is lower. This would require that many cars would in fact be well above 55 to make the average the the department of energy sets out. I am slightly more inclined to believe those numbers then your, ahem "studies." Mind you that the study was conducted in 97 and vehicles are even better now but it would still lend itself to proof of my point. If you want to argue that to make a 55mph average based on cars that all peak below that is possible go right ahead we could all use a good laugh. B

"Have you found that list of cars that are more fuel efficient at 75 than 55?"

Yes, and i went ahead and pointed out the many many flaws in your borrowed hypothesis, no extra charge.

You guys are funny. Somehow you link every gun to a murderer. A gun is an intimate object like a car or a hammer. Would you have a problem with a car giveaway? No, but if its a gun then HOLY SHIT IT MUST BE EVIL!! When will you grow up and see its just a tool not unlike many other that can be misused but in the vast, vast majority are just another piece of sporting equipment. Seriously though, what happen to some of you anti-gun crazies that brought you to such a distorted view on them? What makes you so scared of this ar-15 and its little .22 caliber projectile? My experience with Anti-gun lunatics has been that they never have been around them or learned about them or even bothered to try to think but instead would rather be spoon fed the idea the the evil lies with a chunk of steel plastic and aluminum. Keep running away from everything you don't understand and you won't be left with a whole lot of places to hide.

"You did not answer my question which cars are more effecient at 75 than 55."

I gave an example in my first post. My car does, it is a dohc 4.6 V8 Lincoln mark viii first year 1993. It has a 4-speed electronically controlled automatic with a .70 overdrive in the back i have 3.07's. I have a buddy with an 07 impala and another with an 06 cobalt say the same thing. I have a 79 zephyr that i put a 302 in and got 18 in overdrive at 60 but 20 in third due to a .62 overdrive and 2.73 gears. Not to mention my wifes 4 banger mini truck that can barley hold 60 with the AC on but 70 is no problem, oh yea it gets 30 with a tonneau on I have also a 93 firebird 3.4 5-speed, gets 33 at 70 somewhat less at 60. Now my firebird and Lincoln are fairly aerodynamic in at .34 and .33 DC respectively but that is only part of their efficacy.

Once again i pint to the difference in mileage between engines. If it was all about drag then a larger engine would make the same economy. There is always a few mpg drop between a 6 and an 8 or a four and a six, do V8's induce more drag? No, i thought not. If engine efficiency had no effect then why are we playing with variable displacement or vvt? If you fail to take into account all factors your conclusion is invalid. So work up a hypothesis, be sure in include drag, engine efficiency, tire size, transmission, final drive, weight, altitude, fuel, state of charge, accessory health, tread compound, tire pressure, amongst others then get back to me and tell me it's all about drag.

We are talking two different things here.
First, you are talking drag. The drag coefficient of a car determines the force necessary to propel it through a set density. The cars today are designed to have much lower coefficients then those of past creating a more economical vehicle, but that is only part of the equation. Another large factor is the efficiency of the engine, my point. Both play major roles but you cannot factor out either. If your engine is "lugging" you are not using it's power in an efficient way. Take a diesel for instance, for this purpose i'll say a 96 ford powerstroke f250. They have a very narrow power band and if you stay in this band you run in an efficient manner. I have found that 55 is an ideal speed for that truck, 65 and the mpgs drop to 16 or so 75 and your at 10. This is not due to the resistance but instead has everything to do with the powerplant. If it were all about drag than i would hardly matter what engine size you were running because the power needed would be the same, this is obviously not the case. When an engine is lugging you are not using your fuel to its potential, much ends up burnt in you cats. The better you can convert the fuel into kinetic energy the less you will use. It is the reason you dont drive a 5 speed in 5th at 25 it is the reason we dont cruise on the highway at 500 rpm.
Now there are modern advancement that help with this such as variable cam timing and lift which help control the power band, but especially with the low displacement engines you just can't go down that far. I would seem almost backward but if they lowered the limit to 55 i would probably need to put in 3.73s or at least 3.55s to archive my current economy.
As to your "rule of thumb" that still includes trucks and suvs which are much more susceptible to wind resistance but that skews the conclusion. SO the drag can be offset by the efficiency of the engine and as you approach the more aerodynamic cars this is more frequently the case.

It's nice to know that our gov is not above buying stolen goods. Oh but thats ok, ends justify the means right?

In fact it was a little exiting, deedle deedle du de de de.

With all those dentures flying, deedle deedle du de de de.

"LOL !! as if someone would be in the woods and NOT be naked!!!"

But if your going to take a dump in a stump watch out for centipedes.

Their crutch was fast as lightning. deedle deedle du de de de.

"Treat them well, they are a boon if you're trying to survive in the woods."

Not if your naked.

Damn porcupines.

Huh?

All italics all the time.

How does a farmer transport his cows?

In a mooooving van.

Get it, a mooooving van.
Cause a cow goes moo, oh never mind.

Each vehicle is different, 55 is a speed that has been thrown around since the 70's but it includes pickup trucks, vans and suvs. Many cars are more efficient at 70 then 55 now, partially due to the gear set that are common. A while back a three speed auto or a four speed manual with a one to one 4th were common now overdrive is a given. As you lower the speed at which your engine is spinning you drop yourself out of your power band thus running inefficiently. Many cars can get higher mpg's when running at a higher rate of speed pushing them into the bottom of their power band instead of out of it completely. You can see this by installing a vacuum gauge to your intake manifold and watching your pull, the more inches of vacuum you pull the closer you are to running efficiently.
I offer my car as an example. My daily driver is a Lincoln mark viii, it is rated at 26 mpgs i however routinely get 28 and i drive fairly hard. Recently i found that i can get just about thirty if i cruise around 70 to 75 but that drops to about 27 at sixty. At 60 i run about 1350-1400 rpms but 75 gets to 1750 or so those extra few hundred rpms make a big difference. Past 80 i start loosing mileage again which seem to set my optimum speed at 70. Then you have my truck, The thing make 10 hwy on a great day at 60 but gets almost 13 at 45 mph due to is somewhat less then aerodynamic profile(more like a wall.) Add those together and 55 seem like a happy middle ground but in reality neither vehicle is running at peak efficiency and no one wins. Now does that make sense? Setting a certain speed for efficiency reason is like setting a caloric intake for everyone across the board from a 250 pound wrester who needs 7000 to a 78 pound wuss needing 1200 would you make the eat the same?

"I am just wondering, where does he put it in, in the exhaust pipe?"

If he left it running in his garage while he was at it, would that be a new definition of auto erotic asphyxiation?

Get back to me when he forgets how many states there are.