Obama Looks to give States the rights to set Emissions and Mileage Standards

[Cory Wolfe]

Obama and company including some more moderate republicans want to just enforce laws like CAFE and this is because the consumer doesn't want to buy vehicles like this that get GREAT fuel economy. Let the market drive the choice, I don't understand people who actually think right now or at anytime that this would be a good idea. It is GOING TO KILL CARS LIKE... The Challenger, Camaro, G8, Mustang, Charger, 300, CTS, STS, XLR (already has I believe), Corvette, Viper (might already be dead) and next will come trucks like the Tundra (sure go ahead and get rid of that ugly piece) and then Sierra, Silverado, F-Series and Ram, and Titan. You just wait, I just don't want the goverment telling me what I should drive.

Also last thought if John McCain would have proposed something so stupid I would have been pissed off too for the record. It is far beyond a dem/rep thing it is an issue of taking away consumer freedom and choice, hurting GM and comapny and getting rid of fun RWD **V8 powered** cars so many of us loved...

Tell me, Sir, what do you have in your driveway? If you think we need those vehicles so badly, why haven't you purchased one yourself?

[Oracle of Delphi]

Tell me, Sir, what do you have in your driveway? If you think we need those vehicles so badly, why haven't you purchased one yourself?

[haypops]

None of the carbon comes from the air, as the carbon in the air is in the form of carbon dioxide, which is inert. All of the carbon emitted comes from the fuel, which is why a CO2 standard is a fuel economy standard.

blacko2: you have presented some interesting facts. However, the carbon dioxide in the air is not inert. If it were we would starve.

In an early post you said that diesel engines produce more CO2 than do gasoline engines. Is the total [CO2+CO] the same for both types of engines?

[evok]

Well you can't say that California emissions cars cost more than Federal emissions cars to the end user.... and that's what people are trying to say.

It is called a sociatal cost. Someone is picking up the tab for it.

[Drew Dowdell]

It is called a sociatal cost. Someone is picking up the tab for it.

And my point is that we're already paying that. There wouldn't be additional costs for the consumers if it remained a two standard system like we have today.

[gm4life]

Tell me, Sir, what do you have in your driveway? If you think we need those vehicles so badly, why haven't you purchased one yourself?

One could may very well becoming... Before UNCLE SAM takes them away for good. In the form of a G8 GT or Camaro SS. If I don't get one my son will. Wait a minute I shouldn't have to defend my vehicles, mine are all GM. No silly VW's.

The main reason I don't have one is I wanted the last Bonneville and wasn't sure if Pontiac would get a fullsize sedan again, they did with the great G8, second my wife wanted a small SUV try as I might to her into a Tahoe she wanted a Equinox and I said sure we'll do a Torrent. I put my money where my mouth is. I said back in 2003 I would own a Bonneville before they go away and I did. Don't worry about me. When are you buying your first new GM car BV?

As for my cars since you asked...

In order of year not ownership...

1971 Pontiac Bonneville Sedan 455ci. V8 Aztec Gold/Cream Colored Top

1973 Chevrolet Nova SS (Hatch) 350ci. V8 4spd. Black/White SS stripes

1977 Pontiac Bonneville 301ci. V8 Mojave Beige-Tan/Cream Colored Top

1987 Olds Delta 88 231ci. (3.8 ) V6 Maroon

1990 Pontiac Grand Prix LE Sedan 191ci. (3.1) V6 White

1992 Cadillac Sedan Deville 300ci. (4.9) V8 White

2001 Chevrolet Impala Sedan 204ci. (3.4) V6 Sand Drift Beige (current)

2005 Pontiac Bonneville SLE 231ci. (3.8 ) V6 Cranberry Red Metallic (current)

2007 Pontiac Torrent FWD 204ci. (3.4) V6 Purple Haze Metallic (current)

Dare I say I have owned far more sporty and fun cars than you.

Coming next will be a 2006-2007 Monte Carlo Coupe or a 2002-2004 Cadillac Seville with a Northstar....

Someday later maybe a G8 GT or a Camaro SS possibly even a new Buick LaX...

As for PCS he knows this I will support GM until end unless they pull something stupid.

Edited January 27, 2009 by gm4life

[gm4life]

JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST! First of all, lets waterboard you, then see if you consider it torture. Simulated drowning=torture, there is no way around it. Secondly, closing Gitmo doesn't mean releasing SUSPECTED terrorists into America or sending them back where they came from. It means moving them to other facilities and giving them a fair trial. They're not going to be moved from Gitmo to your local minimum security facility, small towns across America aren't going to have terror suspects sitting in the holding cells of their local police stations. Your argument is asinine.

Your one of those people who want to be nice to the most evil people in the world. No sir you don't get it, glad Clinton is Secretary of State and not you. Honestly people this extreme scare me. No your right lets give these crimials some of the worst in the world the same rights we have and treat them like royalty. FYI I have never broken a law like that or done anything so bad as to put in Gitmo in the first place. Were not gasing them or whipping them, to me it is an acceptable form of punishment and a good way to get people to talk and HELP KEEP THIS COUNTRY SAFE. Since 9/11 on G.W.B's watch how many attacks on America happend? Just a simple question... IF you admit none something is really working to keep this country safe, why risk it now?

God Help this Country. One week down 207 more to go.

[Cory Wolfe]

One could may very well becoming... Before UNCLE SAM takes them away for good. In the form of a G8 GT or Camaro SS. If I don't get one my son will. Wait a minute I shouldn't have to defend my vehicles, mine are all GM. No silly VW's.

I'm not clamoring to save the Silly VeeDubs. If I were, atleast I bought one.

[Croc]

odly enough there was an episode of cities of the underworld that showed california had one called the Pacific Electric Railway. Odly enough GM and several other companies were charged with trying to monopolize transportation but were aquitted.

P.E.R.

more

GM is the great scapegoat for the failure of the Pacific-Electric. This myth just won't die. P-E couldn't compete with the auto, and it was subject to the same urban congestion as autos, hence it cost people to ride it, while driving was "free," driving allowed freedom of movement--much moreso than the fixed streetcar rails could allow, and P-E was mismanaged.

[evok]

And my point is that we're already paying that. There wouldn't be additional costs for the consumers if it remained a two standard system like we have today.

Excuse me. CARB does not want to regulate traditional emissions but CO2 which is fuel economy.

CARB may have made sense back in the 1960s to help with the localized SMOG problems in the LA basin but this is not the 1960s any more.

Regulating CO2 is not a local issue but a national (energy security) or some may say global issue (global warming).

As for cost you are incorrect. Tweaking an engine control calibration to meet CARB emissions targets versus selling advanced powertrain such as hybrids or what have you to meet the CARB's fuel economy targets are two different things.

The Bush's CAFE proposal was expected to cost on the order of $40 billion.

Yes the cost to the end user could be a wash. GM would sell only the Beat in CA, Honda the fit, Nissan the Versa etc. All the Hollywood types could drive across the border to buy their Benzes and Bimmers.

[gm4life]

I'm not clamoring to save the Silly VeeDubs. If I were, atleast I bought one.

You are a goof. I did get a B-Ville as promised to myself. A G8 or a Camaro could be added to my stable someday. Not in 2009 or 2010 prolly. More like 2011 or 2012. :AH-HA_wink: You never know I might suprise you.

[Croc]

Your one of those people who want to be nice to the most evil people in the world. No sir you don't get it, glad Clinton is Secretary of State and not you. Honestly people this extreme scare me. No your right lets give these crimials some of the worst in the world the same rights we have and treat them like royalty. FYI I have never broken a law like that or done anything so bad as to put in Gitmo in the first place. Were not gasing them or whipping them, to me it is an acceptable form of punishment and a good way to get people to talk and HELP KEEP THIS COUNTRY SAFE. Since 9/11 on G.W.B's watch how many attacks on America happend? Just a simple question... IF you admit none something is really working to keep this country safe, why risk it now?

God Help this Country. One week down 207 more to go.

Well, according to the internationally-recognized and -adopted Geneva Conventions--to which the US has signed been signed on for years, and originated during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, that's exactly what you're supposed to do!

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to principles of human decency? I do not know if you are a Christian, but even Jesus said "whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me." The whole "love thy enemy" thing kinda comes into play, too. You just don't get it--by terrorizing suspected terrorists--not charged, tried, and found guilty terrorists--all you accomplish is using terrorism to fight terrorism. The US stoops to their level of torture and becomes terrorists themselves. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON!

And this country certainly doesn't need to engage in torture to "keep safe"--quite the opposite in fact! Nothing is more dangerous to its citizens than the US authorizing torture methods for un-charged, un-tried, alleged criminals. And in comparison to much of the world, this country is damn safe! We had a devastating terrorist attack almost 8 years ago, and an attempt in the early 90s. Meanwhile, Isreal has been receiving rocket fire DAILY for years from Syria, rebels in Northern Ireland have been bombing London periodically, and refugees in Thailand are beaten, loaded on a boat, cast out to sea and cut loose in the middle of the ocean to drown and/or starve.

Yup, this country sure needs to engage in severe forms of human rights abuse to keep everyone "safe." You want "safe"? Go move to a suburb in the middle of America. There, you will have your safe little single-family home, on your safe little cul-de-sac (but since that's French, maybe it should be called a "freedom circle"?), in your safe little enclave governed by neighborhood covenants that prohibit you from painting your house certain colors, hanging up basketball hoops, or parking your cars in the driveway--and why? to keep the neighborhood "safe" and free from anyone who might threaten that "safe" monotony.

[deftonesfan867]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Grab your gun and shoot a terrorist!!

[Drew Dowdell]

Excuse me. CARB does not want to regulate traditional emissions but CO2 which is fuel economy.

CARB may have made sense back in the 1960s to help with the localized SMOG problems in the LA basin but this is not the 1960s any more.

Regulating CO2 is not a local issue but a national (energy security) or some may say global issue (global warming).

As for cost you are incorrect. Tweaking an engine control calibration to meet CARB emissions targets versus selling advanced powertrain such as hybrids or what have you to meet the CARB's fuel economy targets are two different things.

The Bush's CAFE proposal was expected to cost on the order of $40 billion.

Yes the cost to the end user could be a wash. GM would sell only the Beat in CA, Honda the fit, Nissan the Versa etc. All the Hollywood types could drive across the border to buy their Benzes and Bimmers.

Turbo charged, Direct injection, and BAS-II for all! Oh noooo!

I can't find the chart now, but the Turbo-DI Ecotec with BAS-II had a better and flatter torque curve than the base 3.6VVT.

[evok]

Turbo charged, Direct injection, and BAS-II for all! Oh noooo!

I can't find the chart now, but the Turbo-DI Ecotec with BAS-II had a better and flatter torque curve than the base 3.6VVT.

What are you talking about?

I cite real cost estimates and you come back with that. Come on. I am not even arguing what the fuel targets should be - just who has the authority to regulate.

Edited January 27, 2009 by evok

[Drew Dowdell]

What are you talking about?

I cite real cost estimates and you come back with that. Come on. I am not even arguing what the fuel targets should be - just who has the authority to regulate.

I'm agreeing with you (I think). I think this is a terrible idea.

If California wants stricter emissions laws, they can hire lobyiests or ya know, write their Senator, to have the EPA mandate the rules country wide.

I doubt the democrats would have difficulty passing such a measure and Obama would sign it. One standard for the whole country.

[evok]

I'm agreeing with you (I think). I think this is a terrible idea.

If California wants stricter emissions laws, they can hire lobyiests or ya know, write their Senator, to have the EPA mandate the rules country wide.

I doubt the democrats would have difficulty passing such a measure and Obama would sign it. One standard for the whole country.

LOL Got ya. Based upon what was signed in Dec 2007 (Energy Security Act) I do not think they need to pass anything. It is a good requirement and I beleive a smart bill for the auto industry and the country. BO just needs to get the CAFE rule published so the OEMs can get to work and eliminate the uncertainty.

[deftonesfan867]

LOL Got ya. Based upon what was signed in Dec 2007 (Energy Security Act) I do not think they need to pass anything. It is a good requirement and I beleive a smart bill for the auto industry and the country. BO just needs to get the CAFE rule published so the OEMs can get to work and eliminate the uncertainty.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[black02]

blacko2: you have presented some interesting facts. However, the carbon dioxide in the air is not inert. If it were we would starve.

Okay. Let's say it's not part of the combustion cycle.

In an early post you said that diesel engines produce more CO2 than do gasoline engines. Is the total [CO2+CO] the same for both types of engines?

A gallon of diesel fuel produces more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline. CO is produced in very tiny amounts by either engine -- CO has been a regulated pollutant since the 1960s, whereas CO2 has yet to be regulated in the U.S. So, per gallon, the diesel produces more CO2 and more total CO2 and CO than the gas engine. And that's why it's not a great answer for CO2 emission standards. If the cost of diesel emission reduction comes down, then it may yet be a viable option for U.S. passenger cars, but not at today's costs.

The EU has relatively new CO2 emission standards that will apply as a fleet average to each automaker, and we'll have them here if California gets its way.

[pow]

Hmm... I've changed my mind, too. This is a bad idea.

It's true there will only be two CO2/mpg standards - CARB and federal (CAFE). But whereas CAFE requirements reflect the nation's fleet of vehicles, each individual CARB state would have to meet the required MPG average independently.

So even between two CARB states that both require, say, 31.3 mpg, manufacturers would have to adjust their fleets differently for each state. To comply with CAFE, manufacturers currently manage their sales mix through pricing (in order to reduce demand, and thus, sales, of certain vehicles, they raise prices) or rationing. Imposing fuel economy regulations on an individual state level will force manufacturers to have different MSRPs for each state, or more likely, ration the types of vehicles for sale in each state. This would be tough on small CARB states with few dealerships - DC's Volvo dealership would cease to exist unless they started selling Fords as well.

In essence, manufacturers would have to comply with an additional 17+ new jurisdictions, regardless if their standards are the same. All this red tape would be an inefficient use of resources and accomplish very little.

So I've got a genius idea: Instead of being individual states that happen to share the same CO2/mpg standards, why don't the CARB states combine all their vehicle sales into one pool, and have that pool of vehicles meet CARB standards?

Then we'll truly have two systems, one country - not seventeen systems, one country. Instead of having statewide averages, we will have a CARB-wide average.

Edited January 27, 2009 by empowah

[gm4life]

Well, according to the internationally-recognized and -adopted Geneva Conventions--to which the US has signed been signed on for years, and originated during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, that's exactly what you're supposed to do!

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to principles of human decency? I do not know if you are a Christian, but even Jesus said "whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me." The whole "love thy enemy" thing kinda comes into play, too. You just don't get it--by terrorizing suspected terrorists--not charged, tried, and found guilty terrorists--all you accomplish is using terrorism to fight terrorism. The US stoops to their level of torture and becomes terrorists themselves. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON!

And this country certainly doesn't need to engage in torture to "keep safe"--quite the opposite in fact! Nothing is more dangerous to its citizens than the US authorizing torture methods for un-charged, un-tried, alleged criminals. And in comparison to much of the world, this country is damn safe! We had a devastating terrorist attack almost 8 years ago, and an attempt in the early 90s. Meanwhile, Isreal has been receiving rocket fire DAILY for years from Syria, rebels in Northern Ireland have been bombing London periodically, and refugees in Thailand are beaten, loaded on a boat, cast out to sea and cut loose in the middle of the ocean to drown and/or starve.

Yup, this country sure needs to engage in severe forms of human rights abuse to keep everyone "safe." You want "safe"? Go move to a suburb in the middle of America. There, you will have your safe little single-family home, on your safe little cul-de-sac (but since that's French, maybe it should be called a "freedom circle"?), in your safe little enclave governed by neighborhood covenants that prohibit you from painting your house certain colors, hanging up basketball hoops, or parking your cars in the driveway--and why? to keep the neighborhood "safe" and free from anyone who might threaten that "safe" monotony.

Well I live in Iowa so yes I am in middle America and on a dead end street. Still I don't see any reason to "easy" some of the people whom have done and could do some of the most damage to our country and the world sorry. I just disagree, totally. As for more fuel economy standards I don't really think it is a good idea, just like CAFE.

[gm4life]

Hmm... I've changed my mind, too. This is a bad idea.

It's true there will only be two CO2/mpg standards - CARB and federal (CAFE). But whereas CAFE requirements reflect the nation's fleet of vehicles, each individual CARB state would have to meet the required MPG average independently.

So even between two CARB states that both require, say, 31.3 mpg, manufacturers would have to adjust their fleets differently for each state. To comply with CAFE, manufacturers currently manage their sales mix through pricing (in order to reduce demand, and thus, sales, of certain vehicles, they raise prices) or rationing. Imposing fuel economy regulations on an individual state level will force manufacturers to have different MSRPs for each state, or more likely, ration the types of vehicles for sale in each state. This would be tough on small CARB states with few dealerships - DC's Volvo dealership would cease to exist unless they started selling Fords as well.

In essence, manufacturers would have to comply with an additional 17+ new jurisdictions, regardless if their standards are the same. All this red tape would be an inefficient use of resources and accomplish very little.

So I've got a genius idea: Instead of being individual states that happen to share the same CO2/mpg standards, why don't the CARB states combine all their vehicle sales into one pool, and have that pool of vehicles meet CARB standards?

Then we'll truly have two systems, one country - not seventeen systems, one country. Instead of having statewide averages, we will have a CARB-wide average.

That is what scares me.

[Croc]

Still I don't see any reason to "easy" some of the people whom have done and could do some of the most damage to our country and the world sorry. I just disagree, totally.

Well for all I know you COULD be plotting against American values in Iowa. You COULD have a subversive group working in a bunker. You COULD be plotting to overthrow the government.

That's the problem with "COULD"--all I'm saying is that if these really are suspected terrorists with real, credible intelligence behind the allegations, then file charges against them and put them through a trial. But relying on interrogation methods and torture is not the way to do it. Ever hear about false confessions to crimes that the person never committed because the police used intense interrogation techniques on the suspects? There's a lot of literature out there on that.

[ocnblu]

This is not the place for these kind of arguments.

[Croc]

Hmm... I've changed my mind, too. This is a bad idea.

It's true there will only be two CO2/mpg standards - CARB and federal (CAFE). But whereas CAFE requirements reflect the nation's fleet of vehicles, each individual CARB state would have to meet the required MPG average independently.

So even between two CARB states that both require, say, 31.3 mpg, manufacturers would have to adjust their fleets differently for each state. To comply with CAFE, manufacturers currently manage their sales mix through pricing (in order to reduce demand, and thus, sales, of certain vehicles, they raise prices) or rationing. Imposing fuel economy regulations on an individual state level will force manufacturers to have different MSRPs for each state, or more likely, ration the types of vehicles for sale in each state. This would be tough on small CARB states with few dealerships - DC's Volvo dealership would cease to exist unless they started selling Fords as well.

In essence, manufacturers would have to comply with an additional 17+ new jurisdictions, regardless if their standards are the same. All this red tape would be an inefficient use of resources and accomplish very little.

So I've got a genius idea: Instead of being individual states that happen to share the same CO2/mpg standards, why don't the CARB states combine all their vehicle sales into one pool, and have that pool of vehicles meet CARB standards?

Then we'll truly have two systems, one country - not seventeen systems, one country. Instead of having statewide averages, we will have a CARB-wide average.

You bring up some good points. For me, though, I still think this is a good thing. Why? Because I know that with the political pressures the way they are, it will either lead to your proposal, or CAFE being raised to meet CARB. I have no problem with either situation. And if in the meantime manufacturers have to price things differently by state/region...well they already control allocation, so I don't see what the real burden is. GM most definitely allocates vehicles to star dealerships in higher volume states preferentially, so I don't see this scenario really changing much about the status quo, except adding in another layer of allocation filtering. Either way, the environment wins, air quality wins, and fuel efficiency wins. That's where my personal viewpoint is coming from, because I don't have a problem sacrificing a V8 to get a 6, or turbo 4 if it betters the environment and gives me greater fuel efficiency.

[ocnblu]

Pinned Edited January 28, 2009 by ocnblu

[Satty]

Since you probably missed it, here is a link to Guantanimo Baywatch from yesterday's Daily Show. It pretty much sums up why keeping Gitmo open is ridiculous.

And just for the record, I have a federal prison in my back yard (practically, the United States Center for Federal Prisoners is in Springfield, smack dab in the population center of the city) and I wouldn't care at all if a Gitmo inmate were transferred there. Want to know why? ITS A f@#kING PRISON. They're not going to move them into a New York penthouse or some shanty in Dicksburg, IA.

[pow]

http://www.cheersandgears.com/index.php?showtopic=25466

Do you have anything to say that's relevant to this thread...?

[ocnblu]

I have given my opinion on the topic in the title. I provided the link to see if anyone gives a God damn about what this thread has regressed into.

[Croc]

I have given my opinion on the topic in the title. I provided the link to see if anyone gives a God damn about what this thread has regressed into.

This isn't the lounge, and I'm pretty sure Oldsmoboi made it rather clear yesterday that, no, the mods do not agree with you in this case:

Are you applying for an Admin/Moderator position?

Right now we need all the traffic we can get and I've seen a few faces in this thread that we don't usually see around here. I'm ok with the debate that has been going on in here and I've spoken to some of the other people involved privately to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Spirited debate is far more interesting than

Mooooooooving on!

[gm4life]

I am giving up on this topic because clearly people don't want to be tough on the worst people in the world.

[FAPTurbo]

Can someone enlighten me as to what the Geneva Convention has to do with emissions control?

[ShadowDog]

No he has put our country at risk. Traditional American's what to be safe it is not just crazy gun owning republicans. You can give someone civil treatment and not cuddle them. The reason we were so safe is because of the polices Obama just overturned, it sends the terror groups the wrong messeage hit us while were down. Obama is a true politican, and will do anything to try please his left wing looney base and the more moderate and traditional voters who help push him up and over. I can't stand the man and now he wants to take away my freedom to drive a 8 cylinder RWD car he can stick up his a$$. The really funny part is Obama owned a 300C with a 5.7L Hemi and that car wouldn't even come close to meeting his lofty and expensive to the consumer and company to raise fuel economy. Bush stood by his values and did so with less than a 30% approval rating I give him credit for sticking to his guns. Obama will walk the party line and do whatever he needs to do for political gain, recall Rev. Wright.

Traditional Americans don't have the slightest clue what lengths the Administration goes to in order for this happy feeling-guise of "freedom" to continue. Your idea of "freedom" goes too far into the imagination; that you should be free to choose for yourself whether the environment, natural resources, economic tie-ins and old-industry is at risk or not just so you can, what... enjoy yourself? This whole notion of 'Today it's this, tomorrow we'll be overrun with constant terrorism' style argument has been said for generations, well before Communism, even Colonial times. If we didn't allow for change, would black people still be sitting in the back of the bus? There is no denying how much opposition there was to allowing black population the power to vote. How did we fair with that decision? Is the world not still turning? I use this as an example because it was an extremely volatile social problem that was laced with ethical consequences if the wrong decision was made. How funny that bigots and morally-inept racists thought their way was right, too. The world is dynamic, having to make for change that can accommodate as much as possible for the greater good for not only a nation, but a global environment. The Administration under Bush, as well as your argument for "freedom", is largely antiquated. Developing global relations starts with moves such as what Obama proposes. To continue with policy that closes doors and ignores simple ethics and basic human rights places a nation in danger of MORE conflict, not less.

*clicked the wrong damn button*

Anyway, when it comes to empowering the States with these policies, the steps appear flawed for any sort of reasonable expectation for the automotive industry to accommodate. Even if a policy is derived from, oh let's just imagine, a combined agreement developed from all States as an AVERAGE, it's likely the national goals will still fall short from their target... that is, unless the whole idea is to place the entire policy in the hands of the States to develop so that they can come to a conclusion as to their own 'appropriate' GREEN expectations. This sort of move, placing the decision-making in State hands creates a great deal of political power, right down to the citizens (IMHO, where it should be). It makes for a great way to let the voice of the people speak.

Edited January 28, 2009 by ShadowDog

[gm4life]

Traditional Americans don't have the slightest clue what lengths the Administration goes to in order for this happy feeling-guise of "freedom" to continue. Your idea of "freedom" goes too far into the imagination; that you should be free to choose for yourself whether the environment, natural resources, economic tie-ins and old-industry is at risk or not just so you can, what... enjoy yourself? This whole notion of 'Today it's this, tomorrow we'll be overrun with constant terrorism' style argument has been said for generations, well before Communism, even Colonial times. The world is dynamic, having to make for change that can accommodate as much as possible for the greater good for not only a nation, but a global environment. The Administration under Bush, as well as your argument for "freedom", is largely antiquated. Developing global relations starts with moves such as what Obama proposes. To continue with policy that closes doors and ignores simple ethics and basic human rights places a nation in danger of MORE conflict, not less.

I do believe I do have a pretty good clue. Either way we have been safe because of tough policy. Another 9/11 hasn't happend so something must have been working.

Edited January 28, 2009 by gm4life

[Oracle of Delphi]

I am giving up on this topic because clearly people don't want to be tough on the worst people in the world.

Clearly this thread needs to be locked. ...

Edited January 28, 2009 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Intrepidation]

I do believe I do have a pretty good clue. Either way we have been safe because of tough policy. Another 9/11 hasn't happend so something must have been working.

No, you clearly don't.

On that note, if this continues any further I am locking the thread.

[ShadowDog]

No, you clearly don't.

On that note, if this continues any further I am locking the thread.

My bad, sorry. Apparently things became civil in this thread a little over half-way through. I was just about to do a major edit on my post a minute ago but it was too late. There's my apology anyway.

So my reply is better said, "I think this will work."

[cletus8269]

Can someone enlighten me as to what the Geneva Convention has to do with emissions control?

i think the UN is mad at CARB for waterboarding CAFE for better mpg so that there will be a choice between emissions and the EPA is looking the other way while the forum looks like

[ShadowDog]

the EPA is looking the other way while the forum looks like

Interesting how easy it is to see that when conduct like this occurs, nothing gets accomplished and everyone suffers... but it would be GREAT for the UFC PAY PER VIEW FANS!!!

[Drew Dowdell]

I do believe I do have a pretty good clue. Either way we have been safe because of tough policy. Another 9/11 hasn't happend so something must have been working.

While I love debating you, you really need to familiarize yourself with logical fallacies. and how you damage your argument by using them.

In this case you're using : Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise with a sprinkle of Begging the Question.

I do not believe we've had a strong policy at all. Strong rhetoric, sure, but policy, no.

A strong policy would have been not taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and finishing the job there.

A strong policy would have been following the rules of our laws, the Constitution, and the Geneva Conventions.

A strong policy would have been not torturing these suspects since now virtually all of their testimony is inadmissible in court.

Had we followed our own laws, we would have been able to put these people on trial and most likely convict them and leave them locked up for life or executed.

[Croc]

While I love debating you, you really need to familiarize yourself with logical fallacies. and how you damage your argument by using them.

In this case you're using : Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise with a sprinkle of Begging the Question.

I do not believe we've had a strong policy at all. Strong rhetoric, sure, but policy, no.

A strong policy would have been not taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and finishing the job there.

A strong policy would have been following the rules of our laws, the Constitution, and the Geneva Conventions.

A strong policy would have been not torturing these suspects since now virtually all of their testimony is inadmissible in court.

Had we followed our own laws, we would have been able to put these people on trial and most likely convict them and leave them locked up for life or executed.

+1

I really don't have anything else to add to this line of thought; Oldsmoboi has summed it up and elaborated on my positions very nicely.

[daves87rs]

The issue is a tad more complex than that!

[gm4life]

I just enjoy debating. However I agree to disagree.

[Drew Dowdell]

I just enjoy debating. However I agree to disagree.

Where am I wrong?

[Intrepidation]

+1

I really don't have anything else to add to this line of thought; Oldsmoboi has summed it up and elaborated on my positions very nicely.

+2

And on that note, back to whatever the hell we were originally talking about.

[loki]

McCain would have done no differently. He voted for increasing fuel economy standards as well. Even Ron Paul said he would grant states the right to regulate pollution.

Energy security and the environment are bipartisan issues that affect us all.

yes, but Ron Paul would kill the EPA...forcing the states to figure out what they wanted to do anyway... like enforce property rights, something feds can never do.

wow this thread exploded over just a day or two...

Edited January 28, 2009 by loki

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

hmmm... instead of messing with this, lets just build up our rail infrastructure and get some semi-trucks off the streets? Or enforce stricter emissions on Ships (although i want to say that there is some post WW2 treaty that disallows this).

Building more railway would give people jobs, be cleaner and more efficient, and spur private investing (due to better, cheaper, transportation options). Not to mention it could double for public transportation! Which, of course, would reduce emissions as well.

This is not the way to go about reducing emissions, personal autos do not represent the largest contributor to smog (at least not anymore), so we should focus on sectors that will be larger contributors to cleaner air than making automobiles more expensive (especially in hard times!) with diminishing gains as to emissions reduction.

What i mean by the diminishing gains is, you reduce your emissions by 1lb/smog or whatever per year for $5 for a car, but that same 1/lb reduction could be achieved on a ship for $1. Eventually, if emissions reduction was actually enacted sensibly, it would get to the point where the marginal cost to reduce emissions by 1 lb/year would eventually be the same throughout all sectors because they were reduced as efficiently as possible.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Teh Ricer Civic!

[haypops]

Or enforce stricter emissions on Ships (although i want to say that there is some post WW2 treaty that disallows this).

I heard an interview with an industry spokesman for the shipping industry. He said the shipping industry was looking forward to adopting California's stricter emissions for ships in harbor vicinity as the world wide standard.

[gm4life]

hmmm... instead of messing with this, lets just build up our rail infrastructure and get some semi-trucks off the streets? Or enforce stricter emissions on Ships (although i want to say that there is some post WW2 treaty that disallows this).

Building more railway would give people jobs, be cleaner and more efficient, and spur private investing (due to better, cheaper, transportation options). Not to mention it could double for public transportation! Which, of course, would reduce emissions as well.

This is not the way to go about reducing emissions, personal autos do not represent the largest contributor to smog (at least not anymore), so we should focus on sectors that will be larger contributors to cleaner air than making automobiles more expensive (especially in hard times!) with diminishing gains as to emissions reduction.

What i mean by the diminishing gains is, you reduce your emissions by 1lb/smog or whatever per year for $5 for a car, but that same 1/lb reduction could be achieved on a ship for $1. Eventually, if emissions reduction was actually enacted sensibly, it would get to the point where the marginal cost to reduce emissions by 1 lb/year would eventually be the same throughout all sectors because they were reduced as efficiently as possible.

The truck idea is a good one.

[cletus8269]

hmmm... instead of messing with this, lets just build up our rail infrastructure and get some semi-trucks off the streets? Or enforce stricter emissions on Ships (although i want to say that there is some post WW2 treaty that disallows this).

Building more railway would give people jobs, be cleaner and more efficient, and spur private investing (due to better, cheaper, transportation options). Not to mention it could double for public transportation! Which, of course, would reduce emissions as well.

Actually this proposal has just came up around my area. there is a company wanting to build a high speed rail system from atlanta ga to charlotte nc. the train is supposed to travel aprox 100mph or so for the stint.