|
Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
President Bush told a crowd of auto workers on the outskirts of Kansas
City Tuesday that the hybrid vehicles they make are fitting examples of the fuel-efficient vehicles he hopes to see filling roads in the future. Read More http://9updates.blogspot.com/2007/03...-bushs_21.html |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 9 Apr 2007 04:05:01 -0700, "kaash" <kashifraza.tbm@gmail.com>
wrote: >President Bush told a crowd of auto workers on the outskirts of Kansas >City Tuesday that the hybrid vehicles they make are fitting examples >of the fuel-efficient vehicles he hopes to see filling roads in the >future. >Read More >http://9updates.blogspot.com/2007/03...-bushs_21.html Meanwhile, he is pushing for revisions of the CAFE regulations which will allow manufacturers to build more monster SUVs without penalty. Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why > don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to > purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks. People who want them can buy them now. If you don't want that shitbox there are other choices such as honda civic hybrid and (a used) insight for you. You have a choice to work for a company that partially pays for such a shitbox. You want MORE from the government and the corporate? I don't want a Toyolet prius thank you very much. I hope that whoever tightens CAFE standards for cars any further will fall the victim of the next Timothy James McVeigh that he creates in that process. Could not care less about the trucks. Why won't they screw up the requirement for trucks? The car drivers are already screwed with the previous CAFE version and other regulations that apply to cars but not the trucks. As if it was not enough there is more regulatory in the form of the mandatory stability control coming my way. The useless s in DOT and NHTSA have too much time on their hands and their tiny reptilian brains are just uncapable of processing the corner cases correctly. What a pitiful bunch. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 9 Apr 2007 08:42:42 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:
>On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why >> don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to >> purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks. > >People who want them can buy them now. If you don't want that >shitbox there are other choices such as honda civic hybrid >and (a used) insight for you. You have a choice to work for a company >that partially pays for such a shitbox. Encouraging people to drive hybrids is meaningless as long as we are also encouraging others to drive monster SUVs. >You want MORE from the government and the corporate? Yes, what's wrong with wanting more? >I don't want a Toyolet prius thank you very much. >I hope that whoever tightens CAFE standards for cars >any further will fall the victim of the next Timothy James McVeigh >that he creates in that process. So we shouldn't regulate vehicles because some right-wing nut will blow up buildings? Anyway, I wouldn't tighten the regs on cars, so much as modify them to make larger cars viable alternatives to SUVs. >Could not care less about the trucks. Why won't they screw >up the requirement for trucks? Huh? >The car drivers are already screwed >with the previous CAFE version and other regulations that apply >to cars but not the trucks. CAFE does apply to trucks, but it is a separate calculation with lower mileage standards. The problem is that the car companies got a very flexible definition of "truck" which allows them to play games with the numbers. The reasons why CAFE is so screwed up: 1. car companies were allowed too much influence to manipulate the rules, and 2. There has been insufficient political will to modify the rules to close the loopholes exploited by car companies. Still, there may be better solutions than CAFE. How about an extra $3 tax on motor vehicle fuels and a $3000 tax credit (claimable even if it exceeds income tax liability) and a rebate for legitimate business use of trucks. I bet that if gas went up to $6, we wouldn't need CAFE to encourage conservation. If family a family drives 24,000 miles per year in cars that gets 24 mpg, the tax credit would exactly offset the additional fuel cost. If they want to drive a Hummer, they can pay an extra $3000 for the privilege. OTOH, if they buy a hybrid and/or reduce driving they can pocket the savings. >As if it was not enough there is more regulatory in the >form of the mandatory stability control coming my way. Irrelevant. >The useless s in DOT and NHTSA have too much time on their >hands and their tiny reptilian brains are just uncapable of >processing the corner cases correctly. What's a corner case? >What a pitiful bunch. You apparently don't even have a clue what these agencies do. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On Apr 9, 11:46 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
wrote: > On 9 Apr 2007 08:42:42 -0700, isq...@gmail.com wrote: > > >On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why > >> don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to > >> purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks. > > >People who want them can buy them now. If you don't want that > >shitbox there are other choices such as honda civic hybrid > >and (a used) insight for you. You have a choice to work for a company > >that partially pays for such a shitbox. > > Encouraging people to drive hybrids is meaningless as long as we are > also encouraging others to drive monster SUVs. Who is encouraging them to buy trucks???? > >You want MORE from the government and the corporate? > > Yes, what's wrong with wanting more? BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even more screwed up gearing. > >I don't want a Toyolet prius thank you very much. > >I hope that whoever tightens CAFE standards for cars > >any further will fall the victim of the next Timothy James McVeigh > >that he creates in that process. > > So we shouldn't regulate vehicles because some right-wing nut will > blow up buildings? Anyway, I wouldn't tighten the regs on cars, I hope he'll do a bit of a research and target a DOT or NHTSA think tank next time instead of blowing a random federal building. so > much as modify them to make larger cars viable alternatives to SUVs. > > >Could not care less about the trucks. Why won't they screw > >up the requirement for trucks? > > Huh? CAFE average for the truck category is about 6mpg lower than it is for cars for example. > >The car drivers are already screwed > >with the previous CAFE version and other regulations that apply > >to cars but not the trucks. > > CAFE does apply to trucks, but it is a separate calculation with lower > mileage standards. The problem is that the car companies got a very > flexible definition of "truck" which allows them to play games with > the numbers. The reasons why CAFE is so screwed up: 1. car companies > were allowed too much influence to manipulate the rules, and 2. There > has been insufficient political will to modify the rules to close the > loopholes exploited by car companies. Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers at least for that. > Still, there may be better solutions than CAFE. How about an extra $3 > tax on motor vehicle fuels and a $3000 tax credit (claimable even if > it exceeds income tax liability) and a rebate for legitimate business > use of trucks. I bet that if gas went up to $6, we wouldn't need CAFE > to encourage conservation. If family a family drives 24,000 miles per > year in cars that gets 24 mpg, the tax credit would exactly offset the > additional fuel cost. If they want to drive a Hummer, they can pay an > extra $3000 for the privilege. OTOH, if they buy a hybrid and/or > reduce driving they can pocket the savings. You can move overseas to satisfy your thirst for $6/gallon gas. UK for one and Japan for another are pretty close to that I think. You'd get to pay exorbitant prices for the cars, insurance, registration, etc too. On the flip side those countries haven't imported as many ugly bastards as US yet. Or so I think. > >As if it was not enough there is more regulatory in the > >form of the mandatory stability control coming my way. > > Irrelevant. It is? Does your job have anything to do with the actual product development or you are one of the marketing types that come up with assorted set of disjoint and otherwise ed up specifications? > >The useless s in DOT and NHTSA have too much time on their > >hands and their tiny reptilian brains are just uncapable of > >processing the corner cases correctly. > > What's a corner case? Cars with manual transmissions and short gearing. Once the displacement goes up the gearing gets taller to accomodate for the averages they have to meet. > >What a pitiful bunch. > > You apparently don't even have a clue what these agencies do. They set a bunch of regulations that feed the overblown legal departments at all automakers. Did I miss anything important here? Hmm, I don't think I did. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
Well, everyone else is putting in their two cents, so here goes...
Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government should have a say in any of that. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
> Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at
> all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to > whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford > the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government > should have a say in any of that. Amen ! I drive a 5.4L Ford Expedition and my wife drives a 5 spd Honda Civic EX. Each to his own even if she does gripe at me that my Expy uses 2X as much gas as her civic. She sure does like to travel in the Expy though with the dog, etc... Lynn |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficientcars
Robert wrote: > Well, everyone else is putting in their two cents, so here goes... > > Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at > all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to > whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford > the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government > should have a say in any of that. > I'm with you on that. They should stay out of everything except the basics for safety and function and by that I mean nothing more mandatory than seat belts and a functioning exhaust to keep you from being overcome by fumes. Let the market place and prowess of the consumer dictate what direction car design takes. JT |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficientcars
Lynn McGuire wrote: >> Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at >> all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to >> whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford >> the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government >> should have a say in any of that. > > > Amen ! I drive a 5.4L Ford Expedition and my wife drives a 5 spd > Honda Civic EX. Each to his own even if she does gripe at me that my > Expy uses 2X as much gas as her civic. She sure does like to travel in > the Expy though with the dog, etc... > > Lynn > I drive an ancient Honda Civic daily but if it absolutely becomes push to shove, I'll drive the Studebaker T-Cab and the last word in dependability and ability to carry a *real* load... JT (A slave to nothing!) |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 10 Apr 2007 08:38:50 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, everyone else is putting in their two cents, so here goes... > >Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at >all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to >whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford >the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government >should have a say in any of that. You know, that wouldn't be a bad idea if the price at the pump reflected the true cost of the product including: Past, present and future costs of pollution which invariably result from the consumption of this product. This includes, but is not limited to, injury and death of humans from air pollution, damage to streams and lakes from runoff, general damage to the environment, and now the prospect of climate catastrophe growing ever more likely to cost untold trillions of dollars over the next century. Future costs of squandering our finite resources which will inevitably drive up the cost faster and sooner than would otherwise be the case. Past, present and future costs associated with our involvement in the Middle East and potentially other regions driven by our demand for oil. These costs are hard to calculate but they are massive. And they are not reflected in the price you pay at the pump beyond a few pennies in tax. (If paid for by a gas tax, Iraq would be about a dollar a gallon.) |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 9 Apr 2007 22:23:19 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:
>On Apr 9, 11:46 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> >wrote: >> On 9 Apr 2007 08:42:42 -0700, isq...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> >> Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why >> >> don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to >> >> purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks. >> >> >People who want them can buy them now. If you don't want that >> >shitbox there are other choices such as honda civic hybrid >> >and (a used) insight for you. You have a choice to work for a company >> >that partially pays for such a shitbox. >> >> Encouraging people to drive hybrids is meaningless as long as we are >> also encouraging others to drive monster SUVs. > >Who is encouraging them to buy trucks???? You mean besides the multi-billion dollar ad campaign? How about the government allowing the car companies to classify passenger vehicles as trucks and thereby avoid car regulation? How about the insurance companies that charge the same flat fee for liability insurance whether you drive a Civic or a Suburban? > >> >You want MORE from the government and the corporate? >> >> Yes, what's wrong with wanting more? > >BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even >more screwed up gearing. You are really hitting the wacky pills tonight. >> >I don't want a Toyolet prius thank you very much. >> >I hope that whoever tightens CAFE standards for cars >> >any further will fall the victim of the next Timothy James McVeigh >> >that he creates in that process. >> >> So we shouldn't regulate vehicles because some right-wing nut will >> blow up buildings? Anyway, I wouldn't tighten the regs on cars, > >I hope he'll do a bit of a research and target a DOT or NHTSA think >tank next time instead of blowing a random federal building. > >so >> much as modify them to make larger cars viable alternatives to SUVs. >> >> >Could not care less about the trucks. Why won't they screw >> >up the requirement for trucks? >> >> Huh? > >CAFE average for the truck category is about 6mpg lower than it >is for cars for example. So when you say, "screw up" you mean "increase" ? Not an unreasonable thing to do but it could be meaningless unless they change the fundamental regs. For instance, there is no CAFE regulation of Suburbans and Expeditions, they are too big to be covered by CAFE. At the other extreme, there would be nothing to stop Toyota from classifying a slightly modified Prius as a truck. Sell one Prius SUV and you can sell six Sequoias. Car companies already do this - the PT Cruiser is a Neon classified as a truck. >> >The car drivers are already screwed >> >with the previous CAFE version and other regulations that apply >> >to cars but not the trucks. >> >> CAFE does apply to trucks, but it is a separate calculation with lower >> mileage standards. The problem is that the car companies got a very >> flexible definition of "truck" which allows them to play games with >> the numbers. The reasons why CAFE is so screwed up: 1. car companies >> were allowed too much influence to manipulate the rules, and 2. There >> has been insufficient political will to modify the rules to close the >> loopholes exploited by car companies. > >Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable >and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers >at least for that. The loopholes do not help fun cars. The loopholes help trucks. The truth is that you are being denied a lot of interesting cars because the manufacturer would rather that you buy a truck because it makes his CAFE numbers work a lot better. >> Still, there may be better solutions than CAFE. How about an extra $3 >> tax on motor vehicle fuels and a $3000 tax credit (claimable even if >> it exceeds income tax liability) and a rebate for legitimate business >> use of trucks. I bet that if gas went up to $6, we wouldn't need CAFE >> to encourage conservation. If family a family drives 24,000 miles per >> year in cars that gets 24 mpg, the tax credit would exactly offset the >> additional fuel cost. If they want to drive a Hummer, they can pay an >> extra $3000 for the privilege. OTOH, if they buy a hybrid and/or >> reduce driving they can pocket the savings. > >You can move overseas to satisfy your thirst for $6/gallon gas. $6 might come closer to reflecting the true cost. Crusades don't come cheap. But if you don't want a gas tax, there is CAFE. >UK for one and Japan for another are pretty close to that I think. >You'd get to pay exorbitant prices for the cars, insurance, >registration, etc too. On the flip side those countries >haven't imported as many ugly bastards as US yet. Or so I think. Well, not until you go there. > >> >As if it was not enough there is more regulatory in the >> >form of the mandatory stability control coming my way. >> >> Irrelevant. > >It is? Does your job have anything to do with the actual >product development or you are one of the marketing types >that come up with assorted set of disjoint and otherwise >ed up specifications? > >> >The useless s in DOT and NHTSA have too much time on their >> >hands and their tiny reptilian brains are just uncapable of >> >processing the corner cases correctly. >> >> What's a corner case? > >Cars with manual transmissions and short gearing. >Once the displacement goes up the gearing gets taller >to accomodate for the averages they have to meet. > >> >What a pitiful bunch. >> >> You apparently don't even have a clue what these agencies do. > >They set a bunch of regulations that feed the >overblown legal departments at all automakers. >Did I miss anything important here? >Hmm, I don't think I did. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On Apr 10, 6:01 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
> >> >You want MORE from the government and the corporate? > > >> Yes, what's wrong with wanting more? > > >BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even > >more screwed up gearing. > > You are really hitting the wacky pills tonight. > http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578 I should really consider to author a page on wiki "10 cars of the 21st century with the most ed up gearing" and have pictures of subaru impreza and mazdaspeed 3 as two fine examples. > >Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable > >and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers > >at least for that. > > The loopholes do not help fun cars. The loopholes help trucks. Really? Muscle cars are not my cup of tea but here you go again http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578 Enjoy The > truth is that you are being denied a lot of interesting cars because > the manufacturer would rather that you buy a truck because it makes > his CAFE numbers work a lot better. ? I would not buy a truck with the current CAFE standards. But if EPA would keep pressing the automakers and make my life more miserable I'd consider buying a Hummer H2 and painting it green just to please people like you. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 10 Apr 2007 20:41:36 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:
>On Apr 10, 6:01 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> > > >> >> >You want MORE from the government and the corporate? >> >> >> Yes, what's wrong with wanting more? >> >> >BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even >> >more screwed up gearing. >> >> You are really hitting the wacky pills tonight. >> > >http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578 >I should really consider to author a page on wiki >"10 cars of the 21st century with the most ed up >gearing" and have pictures of subaru impreza and >mazdaspeed 3 as two fine examples. > >> >Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable >> >and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers >> >at least for that. >> >> The loopholes do not help fun cars. The loopholes help trucks. > >Really? Muscle cars are not my cup of tea but here you >go again >http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578 >Enjoy > > The >> truth is that you are being denied a lot of interesting cars because >> the manufacturer would rather that you buy a truck because it makes >> his CAFE numbers work a lot better. > >? I would not buy a truck with the current CAFE standards. >But if EPA would keep pressing the automakers and make my life more >miserable I'd consider buying >a Hummer H2 and painting it green just to please people like you. Right, it doesn't matter if we burn all the oil in the world and mess up the planet beyond repair. Who really cares about that? Only green idiots. Tough nuggies on our grandchildren, we were here first. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
dgk wrote:
"Right, it doesn't matter if we burn all the oil in the world and mess up the planet beyond repair. Who really cares about that? Only green idiots. Tough nuggies on our grandchildren, we were here first." I am in no way an environmentalist (I drive a V8 Police Interceptor Mercury Grand Marquis every day, usually short trips too) but I do agree that it's not a bad idea to conserve oil or preserve nature for our grandchildren. However, I don't think that the government needs to play nanny and regulate car manufactures -- it should be up to the people what vehicle they drive, as long as they are aware of the consequences. I would go so far as to say that I should be able to drive a car that failed crash-safety tests, if I chose to -- as long as I was made aware that it failed. People are made aware of the gas mileage estimates, it's posted right on the window sticker when you purchase a new car. If we want to save the planet, we should be able to. If we want to ruin the planet, we should also have just as much leeway in that respect. Our great country was founded on the basis of FREEDOM...plain freedom, not regulated "freedom." |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 10 Apr 2007 20:41:36 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:
>On Apr 10, 6:01 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> > > >> >> >You want MORE from the government and the corporate? >> >> >> Yes, what's wrong with wanting more? >> >> >BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even >> >more screwed up gearing. >> >> You are really hitting the wacky pills tonight. >> > >http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578 >I should really consider to author a page on wiki >"10 cars of the 21st century with the most ed up >gearing" and have pictures of subaru impreza and >mazdaspeed 3 as two fine examples. I could not find anything like this on the site so I still have no idea what you are saying and I can only respond generally. 1. If you have a point to make, make it. Don't make some cryptic reference to something you read on a blog. 2. Blog credibility is no higher than the average usenet poster, which is to say it is a lot higher than yours at this point. So I can understand why you might want to quote from this source, but then just go ahead and quote enough that we actually have a clue what you are talking about. >> >Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable >> >and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers >> >at least for that. >> >> The loopholes do not help fun cars. The loopholes help trucks. > >Really? Muscle cars are not my cup of tea but here you >go again >http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578 >Enjoy Are you referring to the headline: GM Pauses RWD Car Development? I don't see how this would demonstrate that loopholes help fun cars. If you are referring to something else on this web site, see above. > The >> truth is that you are being denied a lot of interesting cars because >> the manufacturer would rather that you buy a truck because it makes >> his CAFE numbers work a lot better. > >? I would not buy a truck with the current CAFE standards. Frankly, you don't make any sense. How do the CAFE standards influence your decision not to buy a truck? >But if EPA would keep pressing the automakers and make my life more >miserable I'd consider buying >a Hummer H2 and painting it green just to please people like you. At $6 a gallon, A fill-up will cost you about $150. Bon appetit. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 11 Apr 2007 13:55:05 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote:
>dgk wrote: >"Right, it doesn't matter if we burn all the oil in the world and >mess >up the planet beyond repair. Who really cares about that? Only green >idiots. Tough nuggies on our grandchildren, we were here first." > >I am in no way an environmentalist (I drive a V8 Police Interceptor >Mercury Grand Marquis every day, usually short trips too) but I do >agree that it's not a bad idea to conserve oil or preserve nature for >our grandchildren. However, I don't think that the government needs to >play nanny and regulate car manufactures -- it should be up to the >people what vehicle they drive, as long as they are aware of the >consequences. I would go so far as to say that I should be able to >drive a car that failed crash-safety tests, if I chose to -- as long >as I was made aware that it failed. People are made aware of the gas >mileage estimates, it's posted right on the window sticker when you >purchase a new car. If we want to save the planet, we should be able >to. If we want to ruin the planet, we should also have just as much >leeway in that respect. Our great country was founded on the basis of >FREEDOM...plain freedom, not regulated "freedom." I don't care if you drive a car that failed passenger safety crash tests. You can even carry passengers as long as they are adults giving informed consent. In these circumstances everyone is knowingly assuming a personal risk. I personally own and drive a go-kart that goes ridiculous speeds and has no seat belt. I and everyone else on the track know the risks and have signed the waiver. But do I have the right to drive an 18 ton truck with bad brakes and bald tires on public roads as long as I am aware of the defects? Most people would say 'no.' While I may accept the risks, other motorists, pedestrians and property owners may not. But what right do they have to interfere with my plain, unregulated FREEDOM? Answer: They have the constitutional right to elect representatives who can pass laws to set standards for the safety and welfare of the community. And they have done so. If you don't like regulations, run for office as an anarchist. If you get enough anarchists elected, you can repeal all those nasty health and safety regulations. In the case of energy policy, that is pretty much what has happened over the last 25 years anyway. So now we have people commuting in monster trucks, lousy mass transit, $3 gas (and that's just the start) and our dick in a vice in Iraq. If you want to get indignant about laws interfering with personal freedom, why not start with the laws prohibiting behaviors which affect only consenting adults? I suggest: http://tinyurl.com/37gydc You can pick up a used copy for $1.27 plus shipping and I guarantee it will be worth it just for the hundreds of quotes - one per page. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0hsq139eovjr46la06trjai74ovul3narl@4ax.com... > On 11 Apr 2007 13:55:05 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote: > > If you don't like regulations, run for office as an anarchist. How's that again? |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:47:52 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote: >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:0hsq139eovjr46la06trjai74ovul3narl@4ax.com.. . >> On 11 Apr 2007 13:55:05 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If you don't like regulations, run for office as an anarchist. > >How's that again? It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment but why not? At my college a slate of candidates ran for the student government on a platform that, if elected, they would immediately disband the student government. They were and they did. The point is that the previous poster implied that the government was not entitled to regulate his "freedom." That is essentially an argument for anarchy. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
Believe it or not, I actually own that book you linked to. And I agree
with everything written in it. As long as I am not harming another person or another person's property, I should be allowed to do what I want. Personally, I would not partake in any of McWilliams' major themes (drugs, sex, gambling, alcohol) because it goes against my beliefs as a Southern Baptist. However, I do not have a problem with other people participating in those other activities as long as they are not harming others or others' property. No, I do not support anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government -- if we had no government, how would we be able to defend our country? How would we be able to communicate with other nations? We would need a leader, who would then transform into a dictator (i.e. Hitler's rise to power), and then we'd be much worse off than we are now with our democracy. What I do support is a limited government -- a government that concentrates on REAL issues like national defense and homeland security -- not nanny issues like CAFE regulations and seat belt laws. To respond to your question about the 18 ton truck with bad brakes and bald tires, no, that is not acceptable if you harm another person or another person's property -- because that is jeopardizing another person's freedom of life and, in terms of their property, their freedom for the pursuit of happiness. No one has the freedom to put others in harm's way without their consent. But if I can safely drive while talking on my cell phone, I should be allowed to talk on my cell phone and drive. If I can safely drive without a seat belt, I should be allowed to drive without my seat belt. If I can afford to drive a truck that gets 4MPG to work every day, I should be allowed to drive that truck. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 12 Apr 2007 19:36:53 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote:
>Believe it or not, I actually own that book you linked to. And I agree >with everything written in it. As long as I am not harming another >person or another person's property, I should be allowed to do what I >want. Personally, I would not partake in any of McWilliams' major >themes (drugs, sex, gambling, alcohol) because it goes against my >beliefs as a Southern Baptist. However, I do not have a problem with >other people participating in those other activities as long as they >are not harming others or others' property. > >No, I do not support anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government -- >if we had no government, how would we be able to defend our country? >How would we be able to communicate with other nations? We would need >a leader, who would then transform into a dictator (i.e. Hitler's rise >to power), and then we'd be much worse off than we are now with our >democracy. What I do support is a limited government -- a government >that concentrates on REAL issues like national defense and homeland >security -- not nanny issues like CAFE regulations and seat belt laws. > >To respond to your question about the 18 ton truck with bad brakes and >bald tires, no, that is not acceptable if you harm another person or >another person's property -- because that is jeopardizing another >person's freedom of life and, in terms of their property, their >freedom for the pursuit of happiness. No one has the freedom to put >others in harm's way without their consent. But if I can safely drive >while talking on my cell phone, I should be allowed to talk on my cell >phone and drive. If I can safely drive without a seat belt, I should >be allowed to drive without my seat belt. If I can afford to drive a >truck that gets 4MPG to work every day, I should be allowed to drive >that truck. Ok. Now understand that every gallon of gas that gets burned releases a set amount of CO2 as well as other pollutants. That has nothing to do with the efficiency of the vehicle, it is chemistry. Those substances hurt other people, and apparently our planet as a whole, therefore harming future people. This leaves out the matter of acquiring the gas in the first place, which also tends to harm other people. A more efficient vehicle burns less gas, therefore causing less damage to other people. But it is tough for me to buy a more efficient vehicle, because in collisions with less efficient vehicles (read heavier), more damage is done to me even if I did not cause the collision. So yes, I want to force you out of SUVs so that I can buy a more efficient car and not risk my life. Other countries do not buy American vehicles because our cars cannot meet the standards of MPG of those countries. That is because they buy sensible vehicles while we do not. If we switched over to more sensible vehicles, we would need less wars for oil, therefore bringing less harm to others and our planet. And so on, for most of your arguments. Very little that individuals do has no impact on others once you think about it. I do admire your position on drug use by other folks. I can't understand why we care if adults want to do drugs, as long as they meet their obligations as citizens such as working and paying their bills. I choose not to, but that was not always the case. I say, tax it. And you can't drive safely without a seat belt and I'm glad we have that law. If you get killed in an accident, I have to pay to keep your kids eating. Besides, I would of had to do work instead of writing this. And I'd best get back to work. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 12 Apr 2007 19:36:53 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote: >No, I do not support anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government -- >if we had no government, how would we be able to defend our country? >How would we be able to communicate with other nations? We would need >a leader, who would then transform into a dictator (i.e. Hitler's rise >to power), and then we'd be much worse off than we are now with our >democracy. This is the Libertarian/Objectivist myth: We should all be independent agents and only look to the government for defense. Why even have a government then? Let's just have everyone defend themselves. If you want a small private army to defend your turf and can afford it, go ahead. Others who don't want or can't afford that can spend less and take their chances. If Hitler can afford to build a big army and take over, that's free enterprise. However, if you are only a pseudo-libertarian who thinks that you need a nanny state to protect you, then you must consider that the nanny state might also be able to serve other purposes for the common good. By acknowledging the need for tribal defense behavior writ large, you open the discussion of whether other tribal behaviors could allow us to do more as a community then we ever could as individuals. Chimpanzees figured this out long ago. It should be fairly obvious to 21st century humans. > What I do support is a limited government -- a government >that concentrates on REAL issues like national defense and homeland >security -- not nanny issues like CAFE regulations and seat belt laws Incidentally, If you really want to commute in a 4mpg monster SUV there is absolutely nothing in CAFE which will interfere with your doing so. Vehicles that exceed 6500 pounds GVWR are considered Medium Duty trucks and are exempt from CAFE. That is why the H2 doesn't even have an EPA mileage estimate. My question is why we allow these vehicles be licensed as cars. |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On Apr 13, 5:04 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2007 19:36:53 -0700, "Robert" <kraft....@gmail.com> wrote: > > A more efficient vehicle burns less gas, therefore causing less damage > to other people. But it is tough for me to buy a more efficient > vehicle, because in collisions with less efficient vehicles (read > heavier), more damage is done to me even if I did not cause the > collision. So yes, I want to force you out of SUVs so that I can buy a > more efficient car and not risk my life. > I do not understand why high fuel consumption is mated in people's mind exclusively to suvs and trucks. EVO (which is high on my shopping list) sips the fuel like a Durango. Is EVO efficient? Hell yes! It could be made lighter by 500 pounds or so but then it won't be a 30k car and it won't consume that much less even if the engine gets detuned to be inline with the reduced weight. What I'm trying to say is that people who are about to revise CAFE at the expense of the automotive enthusiasts deserve to be slaughtered. I don't blame the supreme court granting the EPA additional rights. But EPA officials have to realize that by accepting the extra authority over other people fun there is potentially a price to pay. Back to the truck issue: why in the world do the trucks get 21 mpg allowance while the rest of us are suckered to buy 27 mpg pigmobiles??? |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
<isquat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176697806.443278.209880@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com... > > Back to the truck issue: why in the world do > the trucks get 21 mpg allowance while > the rest of us are suckered to buy 27 mpg > pigmobiles??? > > Different purposes. Trucks are cargo haulers, cars are people haulers. Buses and trains are allowed even more fuel consumption, I'm sure. Mike |
Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
On 15 Apr 2007 21:30:06 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:
>On Apr 13, 5:04 am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote: >> On 12 Apr 2007 19:36:53 -0700, "Robert" <kraft....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A more efficient vehicle burns less gas, therefore causing less damage >> to other people. But it is tough for me to buy a more efficient >> vehicle, because in collisions with less efficient vehicles (read >> heavier), more damage is done to me even if I did not cause the >> collision. So yes, I want to force you out of SUVs so that I can buy a >> more efficient car and not risk my life. >> >I do not understand why high fuel consumption >is mated in people's mind exclusively to suvs and >trucks. EVO (which is high on my shopping list) >sips the fuel like a Durango. >Is EVO efficient? Hell yes! >It could be made lighter by 500 pounds or so but >then it won't be a 30k car and it won't consume >that much less even if the engine gets >detuned to be inline with the reduced weight. I don't have any experience with either vehicle, but I bet that if you drive the Durango like the EVO (to the extent possible) it will get worse mileage. >What I'm trying to say is that people who >are about to revise CAFE at the expense of >the automotive enthusiasts deserve to be slaughtered. Sorry, you can't have a performance vehicle because CAFE has to be rigged to allow the Pig 3 to sell more Urban Assault Vehicles. If you don't like that, call your Congressman. >I don't blame the supreme court granting >the EPA additional rights. But EPA officials >have to realize that by accepting the >extra authority over other people fun >there is potentially a price to pay. You have it backwards. The Supreme Court decision went AGAINST the EPA. The EPA wanted the court to tell them they could NOT regulate CO2. It's the Bush administration, remember? http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2.../NEWS/70415005 Now they have to have to crack down on cars so they can pretend they are trying to reduce CO2 and still allow their corporate masters to sell Suburbans and Expeditions. >Back to the truck issue: why in the world do >the trucks get 21 mpg allowance while >the rest of us are suckered to buy 27 mpg >pigmobiles??? You can buy anything that someone is willing to make. And the manufacturers can make anything they want. The lie that the car makers have to sell 30 mpg cars to offset the 20 mpg cars is bullshit. (Where are the 30 mpg Lambos?) You just have to pay a penalty, about $55 for every mpg by which you miss the standard. Hell, the extra gas you will burn will cost you a lot more. The gas guzzler tax is what kills you, especially as you drop below 18. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands