The expense of purchasing and maintaining a vehicle has grown disproportional to most folks income so it would stand to reason not to risk that investment no more than letting your home fall into disrepair. Inquire about an engine or transmission replacement to put things in perspective. Electronically managed engines and transmissions are too sophisticated to leave anything to chance. This is where synthetics can play a role in protecting and extending the useful service life of a vehicles' drivetrain components. Exception: Those who abuse their equipment will pay the consequences no matter what kind of countermeasures are taken. If you trade vehicles every three or four years then synthetics probably aren't cost effective.
Conventional lubricants have come long way and get the job done however synthetics have the edge in my opinion if you plan on keeping the vehicle beyond 200K. There is psychological comfort with synthetics because of their molecular superiority and extended drain interval within reason.
Do your homework and make your own informed decision about what suits your specific needs. But if you're picky about your ride and know the value of a dollar then the added expense of synthetic is a small economic concession toward feeling secure and confident whether you're on the freeway, city street or a back woods trail.
Conventional lubricants have come long way and get the job done however synthetics have the edge in my opinion if you plan on keeping the vehicle beyond 200K. There is psychological comfort with synthetics because of their molecular superiority and extended drain interval within reason.
Do your homework and make your own informed decision about what suits your specific needs. But if you're picky about your ride and know the value of a dollar then the added expense of synthetic is a small economic concession toward feeling secure and confident whether you're on the freeway, city street or a back woods trail.
Read Your Constitution
Every time I hear the phrase separation of church and state I can only shake my head in disbelief. Mainly because if anyone is remotely familiar with our Constitution they would know that the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the the First Amendment. Moreover that phrase appears in no founding document. The First Amendment, often referred to as the establishment clause states; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So where does this mantra of the liberal left come from?
The true origin of this metaphor is a [text bite] of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and often taken out of context. In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor alarmed the Danbury Baptists and they sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."
Congressional Records June 7 through September 25 of 1789 indicate our founding father's intent for the First Amendment. The founders were saying; "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain; we don't want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God's principles, but we don't want one denomination running the nation."
In 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
This nonsense started with the 1947 Supreme Court. In Everson vs. Board of Education, the Court for the first time did not quote Jefferson's entire letter, but selected eight words from it. The Court allowed that "The First Amendment has erected 'a wall of separation between church and state.' That wall must be kept high and impregnable [the 1947 Court's words to be precise]." A Court heavily weighted by Democrats by the way.
Many years later Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference - a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.
An absurdity repeated often enough will become part of the political lexicon to be parroted by those too apathetic to discern the truth.
The true origin of this metaphor is a [text bite] of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and often taken out of context. In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor alarmed the Danbury Baptists and they sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."
Congressional Records June 7 through September 25 of 1789 indicate our founding father's intent for the First Amendment. The founders were saying; "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain; we don't want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God's principles, but we don't want one denomination running the nation."
In 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."
This nonsense started with the 1947 Supreme Court. In Everson vs. Board of Education, the Court for the first time did not quote Jefferson's entire letter, but selected eight words from it. The Court allowed that "The First Amendment has erected 'a wall of separation between church and state.' That wall must be kept high and impregnable [the 1947 Court's words to be precise]." A Court heavily weighted by Democrats by the way.
Many years later Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference - a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.
An absurdity repeated often enough will become part of the political lexicon to be parroted by those too apathetic to discern the truth.
Total Comments 0
Comments
Recent Blog Entries by Greenie
- Read Your Constitution (05-07-2008)
- Why I can't vote for John McCain (02-04-2008)
- Synthetics (01-25-2008)
