Obama Achievement That Should Have Been Enacted After 9-11 by Bush

[NoNukes]

Never lived in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, or anywhere else that has nomerous accessible waterways, have you?

In any case, what ******* business is it of yours in the first place?

I went to high school and college in Ohio, and most people did not have boats.

It is my business because this is a public forum.

Most people that you know didn't have boats....Which is irrelevant, as I was using boat ownership as an example of the myriad of reasons why people would want a large powerful vehicle...Which is still none of your business.


This being a public forum doesn't change that fact.

Most people on the road in Ohio and these other states are not towing boats.

 

[G.T.]

pontiac g6's don't exist. we could never make a sports car that gets 30mpg and has good safety ratings for only 21k..................and with 12 years we ca'tn nudge that 20mph. no ******* way!

 

[Oddball]

yes it's so fascist to have some sort of reasonable standards in place for things that effect the entire population.......i actually am a big fan of all the glory that is fascism.

when you sensationalize, you're not making a point you're showing a weakness. kerry on

"Reasonable" as defined by fascists like you.

Kiss my ass.

no, as defined by YOU, via your vote and your free speech to champion whatever cause you wish.

rah rah, GOOOOOOOOO! gas guzzlers!

Wrong...I'm not the one here arbitrarily determining what fascistic central control over what kinds of automobiles will or won't be deemed "acceptable" for Americans is "reasonable"....You are, comrade.

 

[Liability]

I think that, before you talk about what Politicians don't know about what's possible in the auto-industry............you should study up on it yourself. Just saying. give it a shot.

You mean to tell me, that we can teleport light particles....that we have unmanned aircraft.........that we basically can wipe our ass with mach speed aircraft.............that we can't build a safe car that can go fast and simultaneously has great fuel efficiency?>

You, of course, don't know what what I know or have already learned. In fact, you have exactly no idea.

So let's dispense with your preconceived notions and your banal banter.

Just saying.

Yes, we have already teleported light particles. Cool stuff certainly, but with no practical utility in it, yet; and possibly none for a LONG motherfucking time.

Yes, we have unmanned aircraft. They do amazing things. Sometimes they crash, however. And they are often remarkably labor intensive.

Fast aircraft obviously exist, though I don't recommend you try wiping your ass with them.

All of that proves what? That humankind has some great scientific knowledge and remarkable potential? Agreed.

That is FAR from saying that the generally lengthy interval between innovation and manufacturing technology justifies the interference by often ignorant politicians and bureaucrats in our market economy.

They have already tried that. The result has been more fuel efficiency. CAFE standards HAVE "worked" in that problematically limited sense. But overall SAFETY for motorists has been reduced as a consequence.

This is not a tradeoff I am content with. I don't see why anybody should be.

There's absolutely no reason with the technology readily available to continue the cherade of our large dependance on fossil fuel. My point is EXACTLY that the market won't always work toward the betterment of human beings, and you're right that neither does the Government always....but as it stands, this issue is solvable and I think that bas a Nation we're beyond being late in solving it.

The technological capacity we HAVE is nowhere near what we need it to be for your utopian assertions to be even close to true.

Right now, today, we need fossil fuels to run our economy. It is the life-blood of American industry and travel.

All the other sources of "fuel" combined will NOT, today, get our manufactured materials to and from the buyers and the producers. It won't get the raw materials to the manufacturers. It will not get the consumers to their respective local markets. It will not run our mills, our plants and our offices. It will not light our highways and our homes or heat our homes.

For all of that, and more, we today still NEED relatively inexpensive fossil fuel.

This is not a prescription for doom. It is a recognition of where we are. Changes to our infrastructure will be difficult to accomplish and will take years, perhaps decades, and even that will FIRST require a verifiable and dependable alternative set of energy sources which do not yet exist and are not likely to exist for a long ******* time.

None of this is an excuse not to get started. Get started we should Inducements to help the scientific community and the R&D folks and the related manufacturing companies get started are ok by me, for the short term. In a manner akin to how we created NASA for a specific set of goals, I could get behind an inducement program for energy independence. But it would HAVE to be completely divorced from the kind of social engineering that we see in the kind of CRAP like federally mandated "regional energy plans" that would end up monitoring individual home "compliance."

Like you, I have faith in scientific and technological innovations, too. But not when they are mandated prematurely by damn bureaucrats.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah, one of the best ways to help overcome our dependence on foreign oil is to use less of it. And increasing cafe standards is one step in that direction.

Thank you, President Obama.

Now, I wonder why Bush never did anything like this. Do you suppose that it was because the oil industry didn't like the idea of selling less gas?

President Barack Obama, with the backing of major carmakers, announced a plan Friday to boost average fuel economy of new cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, nearly double current levels.

"This agreement on fuel standards represents the single most important step we’ve ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," Obama said at a Washington event with top automaker executives and union leaders.

The new standards are the result of a compromise with the industry after the White House initially proposed even tougher requirements that would have raised the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standard to 62 mpg.

The plan announced Friday calls for a fleetwide average of 54.5 mpg -- higher for cars and lower for "light trucks," a category that includes pickups and sport utilitiy vehicles.

The fleet standard was stuck at 27.5 for two decades until it was raised under the Obama administration, which set an increase from 30.2 this year to 35.5 mpg in the 2016 model year. The new rules would require an additional 5 percent annual improvement in car fuel economy from 2017 to 2025. For light trucks the standard would rise 3.5 percent a year from 2017 to 2021 and 5 percent annually from 2021 to 2025.

New rules to demand far higher fuel economy - Business - Autos - msnbc.com

Yep. Push the fuel efficiency standards into ludicrous levels so we stop producing safe, functional cars.

I take it you don't care that every increase in the cafe standard has had a corresponding increase in traffic fatalities because these little plastic put-puts kill people at a far higher rate than other vehicles?

Why do you think the cars got so big and heavy? Because they were safer! Now, you won't have a spare tire in it (oh who needs that nowadays? ) You have no room for crumple zones, you can't haul cargo, you can't haul large families.

You just have idiots zipping around in their economical little crash carts thinking they're saving money, but since their gas tank is only 5 gallons, they think they're cutting on consumption but they're not because they NEED to drive more to do the same amount of work as a single SUV does in 1 trip!

This is a ******* joke. Hell, I learned when I was a kid via "3-2-1 Contact" that a little put-put can't compete with a large vehicle when lots of work needs to be done.

Cheer all you want. You look like cheerleaders who just celebrated their team fumbling.

 

[Oddball]

I went to high school and college in Ohio, and most people did not have boats.

It is my business because this is a public forum.

Most people that you know didn't have boats....Which is irrelevant, as I was using boat ownership as an example of the myriad of reasons why people would want a large powerful vehicle...Which is still none of your business.


This being a public forum doesn't change that fact.

Most people on the road in Ohio and these other states are not towing boats.

Reading for comprehension will really improve your communication skills, s0n...To repeat....

WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY TOWING BOATS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE OVERALL EXAMPLE OF REASONS PEOPLE MIGHT WANT A LARGE POWERFUL VEHICLE, YOU IMBECILE!

 

[G.T.]

"Reasonable" as defined by fascists like you.

Kiss my ass.

no, as defined by YOU, via your vote and your free speech to champion whatever cause you wish.

rah rah, GOOOOOOOOO! gas guzzlers!

Wrong...I'm not the one here arbitrarily determining what fascistic central control over what kinds of automobiles will or won't be deemed "acceptable" for Americans is "reasonable"....You are, comrade.

where there's roads, there's cars, ass hole.

I'm not deciding on anything. I'm agreeing or disagreeing with the standards put in place by the pols AMERICANS voted into Office, and I agree with having standards. You can always disagree with the standards and get off you bedunkadunk fat ass and go voice it for the world of voters to hear your case. but sitting here on a lap top wining about fascism daily is the much more manly, patriotic way to change a corrupted system you loathe so dearly.

****, when i get as passionate as you about shit........i leave my basement at least. for christ's sakes

 

[Stephanie]

As a gentle REMINDER, CAFE "standards" KILL motorists.

CAFE Standards Should Be Repealed

Piffle. Not to mention faulty logic. Actually, it's a LACK of logic. That's your forté, alright.

Cafe Standards don't kill. Car accidents kill. That includes things like:

bad drivers
drunk drivers
tired drivers
not wearing seat belts and/or shoulder harnesses
driving too fast for conditions
tailgaiting
distracted driving (as in texting, or talking on a cell phone, or smoking, etc)

Scratch a liberal find a Fascist.
The Obama believes himself to be a DICTATOR. and you idiots cheer him. He is sounding more and more like Hugo Chavez EVERY FRIGGEN DAY.

 

[Oddball]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY]‪The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Full-Auto]

You can not force technology.

So we go back to the crap of the 80s, that allowed japan a huge foothold.


Well youre going to pay


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IILD0N8eeQc&feature=player_embedded]‪You're Gonna Pay‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[G.T.]

You, of course, don't know what what I know or have already learned. In fact, you have exactly no idea.

So let's dispense with your preconceived notions and your banal banter.

Just saying.

Yes, we have already teleported light particles. Cool stuff certainly, but with no practical utility in it, yet; and possibly none for a LONG motherfucking time.

Yes, we have unmanned aircraft. They do amazing things. Sometimes they crash, however. And they are often remarkably labor intensive.

Fast aircraft obviously exist, though I don't recommend you try wiping your ass with them.

All of that proves what? That humankind has some great scientific knowledge and remarkable potential? Agreed.

That is FAR from saying that the generally lengthy interval between innovation and manufacturing technology justifies the interference by often ignorant politicians and bureaucrats in our market economy.

They have already tried that. The result has been more fuel efficiency. CAFE standards HAVE "worked" in that problematically limited sense. But overall SAFETY for motorists has been reduced as a consequence.

This is not a tradeoff I am content with. I don't see why anybody should be.

There's absolutely no reason with the technology readily available to continue the cherade of our large dependance on fossil fuel. My point is EXACTLY that the market won't always work toward the betterment of human beings, and you're right that neither does the Government always....but as it stands, this issue is solvable and I think that bas a Nation we're beyond being late in solving it.

The technological capacity we HAVE is nowhere near what we need it to be for your utopian assertions to be even close to true.

Right now, today, we need fossil fuels to run our economy. It is the life-blood of American industry and travel.

All the other sources of "fuel" combined will NOT, today, get our manufactured materials to and from the buyers and the producers. It won't get the raw materials to the manufacturers. It will not get the consumers to their respective local markets. It will not run our mills, our plants and our offices. It will not light our highways and our homes or heat our homes.

For all of that, and more, we today still NEED relatively inexpensive fossil fuel.

This is not a prescription for doom. It is a recognition of where we are. Changes to our infrastructure will be difficult to accomplish and will take years, perhaps decades, and even that will FIRST require a verifiable and dependable alternative set of energy sources which do not yet exist and are not likely to exist for a long ******* time.

None of this is an excuse not to get started. Get started we should Inducements to help the scientific community and the R&D folks and the related manufacturing companies get started are ok by me, for the short term. In a manner akin to how we created NASA for a specific set of goals, I could get behind an inducement program for energy independence. But it would HAVE to be completely divorced from the kind of social engineering that we see in the kind of CRAP like federally mandated "regional energy plans" that would end up monitoring individual home "compliance."

Like you, I have faith in scientific and technological innovations, too. But not when they are mandated prematurely by damn bureaucrats.

So your theory takes a Mulligan if, by the year prescribed, we have the vehicles with great safety standards, plenty of power and speed, and at an affordable price?

I mean to me, that's a pretty desirable effect and to me, my faith is that we already have the technology but the market hasn't provided the incentive, and that lack of incentive is hurting our Country.

That's my opinion. Hate me for it, ridicule it as ignorant, do whatever you want. Do you. I'll do me.

 

[McDowell's]

pontiac g6's don't exist. we could never make a sports car that gets 30mpg and has good safety ratings for only 21k..................and with 12 years we ca'tn nudge that 20mph. no ******* way!

You're right. Pontiac G6's no longer are in production. Pontiac has been discontinued adding further credence to the argument that you are:

1) A retard
2) Pretty much everything you advocate is not supported by reality.

 

[G.T.]

pontiac g6's don't exist. we could never make a sports car that gets 30mpg and has good safety ratings for only 21k..................and with 12 years we ca'tn nudge that 20mph. no ******* way!

You're right. Pontiac G6's no longer are in production. Pontiac has been discontinued adding further credence to the argument that you are:

1) A retard
2) Pretty much everything you advocate is not supported by reality.

wtf does that have to do with whether or not the technology to make fuel efficient, fast, safe cars is readily available?

 

[Liability]

There's absolutely no reason with the technology readily available to continue the cherade of our large dependance on fossil fuel. My point is EXACTLY that the market won't always work toward the betterment of human beings, and you're right that neither does the Government always....but as it stands, this issue is solvable and I think that bas a Nation we're beyond being late in solving it.

The technological capacity we HAVE is nowhere near what we need it to be for your utopian assertions to be even close to true.

Right now, today, we need fossil fuels to run our economy. It is the life-blood of American industry and travel.

All the other sources of "fuel" combined will NOT, today, get our manufactured materials to and from the buyers and the producers. It won't get the raw materials to the manufacturers. It will not get the consumers to their respective local markets. It will not run our mills, our plants and our offices. It will not light our highways and our homes or heat our homes.

For all of that, and more, we today still NEED relatively inexpensive fossil fuel.

This is not a prescription for doom. It is a recognition of where we are. Changes to our infrastructure will be difficult to accomplish and will take years, perhaps decades, and even that will FIRST require a verifiable and dependable alternative set of energy sources which do not yet exist and are not likely to exist for a long ******* time.

None of this is an excuse not to get started. Get started we should Inducements to help the scientific community and the R&D folks and the related manufacturing companies get started are ok by me, for the short term. In a manner akin to how we created NASA for a specific set of goals, I could get behind an inducement program for energy independence. But it would HAVE to be completely divorced from the kind of social engineering that we see in the kind of CRAP like federally mandated "regional energy plans" that would end up monitoring individual home "compliance."

Like you, I have faith in scientific and technological innovations, too. But not when they are mandated prematurely by damn bureaucrats.

So your theory takes a Mulligan if, by the year prescribed, we have the vehicles with great safety standards, plenty of power and speed, and at an affordable price?

I mean to me, that's a pretty desirable effect and to me, my faith is that we already have the technology but the market hasn't provided the incentive, and that lack of incentive is hurting our Country.

That's my opinion. Hate me for it, ridicule it as ignorant, do whatever you want. Do you. I'll do me.

I don't hate you. But you are talking gibberish.

Your "mulligan" line was indecipherable, for example.

The facts are different than your unfounded beliefs.

No. We do NOT yet have the technology.

And as desirable as some arbitrarily selected fuel efficiency "goal" might be, that is not properly the role of a damn bureaucrat. Indeed, properly understood, it is also not the role of a legislature.

I buy gasoline. The idiotic "policies" of our narrow-minded President and his liberal cohorts have seen the price of gasoline at the pump essentially DOUBLE in his two and a half or so years at the helm. He SUCKS as President. But I STILL have a real world inducement to purchase a more fuel efficient car. I did so, in fact. But due to CAFE standards, it is not as safe as it could be and not as safe as it ******* well SHOULD be. (Not to mention that the price of gas shouldn't compel me to make such diabolical choices.)

If Detroit and Japan could produce safer more fuel efficient vehicles at reasonable cost, they damn well would have, because THAT is the nature of a capitalist market. That they cannot YET do so is a limitation imposed by reality. That will not be rectified by bureaucratic regulation.

 

[G.T.]

by the way for you, and for the douche who thanked you, Pontiac as a whole is done. Not solely the G6. Lame.

Review of the 2012-2013 G6:

2012 2013 Pontiac G6 Review Pricing

 

[G.T.]

The technological capacity we HAVE is nowhere near what we need it to be for your utopian assertions to be even close to true.

Right now, today, we need fossil fuels to run our economy. It is the life-blood of American industry and travel.

All the other sources of "fuel" combined will NOT, today, get our manufactured materials to and from the buyers and the producers. It won't get the raw materials to the manufacturers. It will not get the consumers to their respective local markets. It will not run our mills, our plants and our offices. It will not light our highways and our homes or heat our homes.

For all of that, and more, we today still NEED relatively inexpensive fossil fuel.

This is not a prescription for doom. It is a recognition of where we are. Changes to our infrastructure will be difficult to accomplish and will take years, perhaps decades, and even that will FIRST require a verifiable and dependable alternative set of energy sources which do not yet exist and are not likely to exist for a long ******* time.

None of this is an excuse not to get started. Get started we should Inducements to help the scientific community and the R&D folks and the related manufacturing companies get started are ok by me, for the short term. In a manner akin to how we created NASA for a specific set of goals, I could get behind an inducement program for energy independence. But it would HAVE to be completely divorced from the kind of social engineering that we see in the kind of CRAP like federally mandated "regional energy plans" that would end up monitoring individual home "compliance."

Like you, I have faith in scientific and technological innovations, too. But not when they are mandated prematurely by damn bureaucrats.

So your theory takes a Mulligan if, by the year prescribed, we have the vehicles with great safety standards, plenty of power and speed, and at an affordable price?

I mean to me, that's a pretty desirable effect and to me, my faith is that we already have the technology but the market hasn't provided the incentive, and that lack of incentive is hurting our Country.

That's my opinion. Hate me for it, ridicule it as ignorant, do whatever you want. Do you. I'll do me.

I don't hate you. But you are talking gibberish.

Your "mulligan" line was indecipherable, for example.

The facts are different than your unfounded beliefs.

No. We do NOT yet have the technology.

And as desirable as some arbitrarily selected fuel efficiency "goal" might be, that is not properly the role of a damn bureaucrat. Indeed, properly understood, it is also not the role of a legislature.

I buy gasoline. The idiotic "policies" of our narrow-minded President and his liberal cohorts have seen the price of gasoline at the pump essentially DOUBLE in his two and a half or so years at the helm. He SUCKS as President. But I STILL have a real world inducement to purchase a more fuel efficient car. I did so, in fact. But due to CAFE standards, it is not as safe as it could be and not as safe as it ******* well SHOULD be. (Not to mention that the price of gas shouldn't compel me to make such diabolical choices.)

If Detroit and Japan could produce safer more fuel efficient vehicles at reasonable cost, they damn well would have, because THAT is the nature of a capitalist market. That they cannot YET do so is a limitation imposed by reality. That will not be rectified by bureaucratic regulation.

I disagree where and where not Government should have a role, that's basically where we differ.

I believe in NASA because, like the advancement of more fuel efficient cars, I think it plays a positive role in Humanity, itself.

You must not believe in NASA, and that's fine, but it's the same idea in my opinion as to why we should have a standard for fuel efficiency.

 

[Jarhead]

So your theory takes a Mulligan if, by the year prescribed, we have the vehicles with great safety standards, plenty of power and speed, and at an affordable price?

I mean to me, that's a pretty desirable effect and to me, my faith is that we already have the technology but the market hasn't provided the incentive, and that lack of incentive is hurting our Country.

That's my opinion. Hate me for it, ridicule it as ignorant, do whatever you want. Do you. I'll do me.

I don't hate you. But you are talking gibberish.

Your "mulligan" line was indecipherable, for example.

The facts are different than your unfounded beliefs.

No. We do NOT yet have the technology.

And as desirable as some arbitrarily selected fuel efficiency "goal" might be, that is not properly the role of a damn bureaucrat. Indeed, properly understood, it is also not the role of a legislature.

I buy gasoline. The idiotic "policies" of our narrow-minded President and his liberal cohorts have seen the price of gasoline at the pump essentially DOUBLE in his two and a half or so years at the helm. He SUCKS as President. But I STILL have a real world inducement to purchase a more fuel efficient car. I did so, in fact. But due to CAFE standards, it is not as safe as it could be and not as safe as it ******* well SHOULD be. (Not to mention that the price of gas shouldn't compel me to make such diabolical choices.)

If Detroit and Japan could produce safer more fuel efficient vehicles at reasonable cost, they damn well would have, because THAT is the nature of a capitalist market. That they cannot YET do so is a limitation imposed by reality. That will not be rectified by bureaucratic regulation.

I disagree where and where not Government should have a role, that's basically where we differ.

I believe in NASA because, like the advancement of more fuel efficient cars, I think it plays a positive role in Humanity, itself.

You must not believe in NASA, and that's fine, but it's the same idea in my opinion as to why we should have a standard for fuel efficiency.

do you believe our legislators vote for ideas they truly believe in ONLY....or do you believe they vote along party lines sometimes...vote for special interests somnetimes....vote for future votes sometimes...etc?

 

[G.T.]

they're scumbags, and the reason they're scumbags is because some people have so much money to wave in their scumbag faces that they vote to appease said money holders. said money holders also have the means to mass produce propoganda so that people vote their guys into office.

all that said, if they do something I agree with, I'll say that I agree with it.............such as advancing our horrendous fuel standards.

 

[Oddball]

And as desirable as some arbitrarily selected fuel efficiency "goal" might be, that is not properly the role of a damn bureaucrat. Indeed, properly understood, it is also not the role of a legislature.

Moreover, it's completely preposterous to have one notion (MPG) of "fuel efficiency" be foisted upon us as THE only standard that matters.

Back in the 60s and early 70s is was a big deal to get 1 HP:CID...And you pretty much had to hop your engine up with racing parts to get that ratio.

Nowadays, cars are rolling off the line that get 50% and more "fuel efficiency" per CID...More HP with smaller motors...And we didn't need to force death trap shit boxes like Pintos and K-Cars onto the roads to get those innovations and upgrades.

Which federal bureaucracy mandated power windows and door locks, active suspensions, radial tires, AWD and the slew of other equipment that makes cars better and safer to drive?....Oh that's right, there wasn't one.

But, somehow or another, it becomes the feds' role to dictate MPG, all to the thundering applause of the nanny/enviro fascists?

 

[Liability]

So your theory takes a Mulligan if, by the year prescribed, we have the vehicles with great safety standards, plenty of power and speed, and at an affordable price?

I mean to me, that's a pretty desirable effect and to me, my faith is that we already have the technology but the market hasn't provided the incentive, and that lack of incentive is hurting our Country.

That's my opinion. Hate me for it, ridicule it as ignorant, do whatever you want. Do you. I'll do me.

I don't hate you. But you are talking gibberish.

Your "mulligan" line was indecipherable, for example.

The facts are different than your unfounded beliefs.

No. We do NOT yet have the technology.

And as desirable as some arbitrarily selected fuel efficiency "goal" might be, that is not properly the role of a damn bureaucrat. Indeed, properly understood, it is also not the role of a legislature.

I buy gasoline. The idiotic "policies" of our narrow-minded President and his liberal cohorts have seen the price of gasoline at the pump essentially DOUBLE in his two and a half or so years at the helm. He SUCKS as President. But I STILL have a real world inducement to purchase a more fuel efficient car. I did so, in fact. But due to CAFE standards, it is not as safe as it could be and not as safe as it ******* well SHOULD be. (Not to mention that the price of gas shouldn't compel me to make such diabolical choices.)

If Detroit and Japan could produce safer more fuel efficient vehicles at reasonable cost, they damn well would have, because THAT is the nature of a capitalist market. That they cannot YET do so is a limitation imposed by reality. That will not be rectified by bureaucratic regulation.

I disagree where and where not Government should have a role, that's basically where we differ.

I believe in NASA because, like the advancement of more fuel efficient cars, I think it plays a positive role in Humanity, itself.

You must not believe in NASA, and that's fine, but it's the same idea in my opinion as to why we should have a standard for fuel efficiency.

Your reading comprehension or your honesty and intelligence are now called into question.

Silly you.

I had just CITED NASA. In fact, my citation to NASA takes me out of the realm of an overly pure form of conservative political philosophy in some ways, and I recognize that. But I had just cited to it, anyway.

Your babbling incoherent "rejoinder" kind of exposes you as a bit of a fraud.

I stand by what I said, however. There is no reason on Earth why I would cede to a faceless bureaucrat or to some politician or legislative body any of our rights to buy the legal products we wish to own. I would no more tolerate them saying that my car MUST get 50 mph regardless of the safety compromises necessary to get it there than I would tolerate them requiring that the exterior roof of all cars and trucks be painted white.

I live in America, not some fascist foreign land, like California, after all.