10 States sue Bush.

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by Bro. Curtis, May 2, 2006.

  1. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    LINK

    WASHINGTON -- Ten states, led by California, sued the federal government Tuesday to try to force the Bush administration to strengthen gas mileage requirements for sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks.

    The lawsuit contends the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration failed to conduct a thorough analysis of the environmental benefits of fuel economy regulations and the impact of gasoline consumption on climate change.

    "The federal agency has ignored the law that requires integrating environmental impacts into their standard-setting," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in an interview with The Associated Press.

    The states filed a petition for review with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The action follows the release of a government rule in late March setting tighter gas mileage rules for pickups, SUVs and vans covering the 2008-2011 model years.....


    Hmm. Imagine that. The 9th ciruit court of appeals.

    Thanx a bunch. My tax $$ at work.
     
  2. Dave

    Dave
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of the left-wing states that always want to dictate policy for the country, huh. What a surprise!

    If people keep electing these fools, that's what we'll keep getting. Wouldn't you think the people would see through this and get rid of this batch of politicians in these states?
     
  3. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    I might be wrong on this, but I thought the 9th Circuit Court judges were appointed, not elected.
     
  4. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Correct. But the folks who brought it there were elected. The court had only to approve.
     
  5. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you guys are in favor of more pollution and worse mileage?
     
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm in favor of the government not sticking it's nose into my life.

    But, Daisy, if that's what you want to think, I'm fine with it.

    BTW, even experts think we can drop the Earth's temp by 0.001878374 °C by the year 2050, if we all try real hard.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,413
    Likes Received:
    71
    Energy policy is a matter of national security. It isn't just the government sticking its nose into your life.
     
  8. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Baloney. This hurts national security more. My senators & representatives could be doing a lot better things than this horse hockey. It's Bush Derangement Syndrom taken to the extreme.

    I know Al Gore would get that pesky 0.001878374 dergree.
     
  9. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think it's amazing there was never a gas shortage when we all owned muscle cars back in the good old days and gas was cheap. The Alaskan pipeline started the downhill spiral because politicians and big oil suckered us into believing the cost of construction to American taxpayers would ultimately end in our benefit. NOT!
     
  10. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
  11. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    &lt;personal attack deleted - LE &gt;...,but then even after cynical cheap shots based on fear and not faith..the one that really cares and has been a good prophet on global warming Al Gore...He cares.

    &lt;personal attack deleted - LE&gt;
    [​IMG]

    http://www.sakthifoundation.org/images/sun-reflection-33333.jpg [​IMG]

    God bless you Al Gore for caring! [​IMG]

    [ May 03, 2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]
     
  12. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I don't quite follow - how would requiring better mileage and fewer, safer emissions be interfering in your life?

    That's the logical inference if you're opposed to lower standards for light-weight trucks, but I'm asking you because it seems an odd desire.

    Which experts (source, please) and how did they come up with that particular figure? But even that would be better than continuing to raise the temperature.
     
  13. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's something for you, Bro Curtis:
    "Friends of Science", eh? I love the way these (usually right-wing) groups and programs are named to mislead.
     
  14. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Just as government regulation is in large part responsible for any gasoline shortages we are currently having, this frivolous lawsuit, if won, would undoubtedly increase the price of autos, trucks, and SUVs across the board.

    John Kerrys'wife probably won't care. ;)
     
  15. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is there an actual shortage of gasoline? How are government regulation responsible for it?

    It's not frivolous.

    Why would it affect the price of cars? I believe the suit only applies to light trucks and SUVs. Even if it were to increase the price, which is no sure thing, that might be offset by the savings in gasoline for the owners and health costs for everyone else.

    And do you think Bush's & Cheney's wives will be pulling their hair out with worry? :rolleyes:
     
  16. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Daisy, will government regulation on my SUV work better than government regulation of the palatial mansions our movie stars live in ? Does Ted Kennedy really need several houses, in several states, to heat and air condition ? Why don't we focus on that ? I'm POSITIVE that George Clooney uses more fossil fuel than I do.
     
  17. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sounds like Canada has a few smart people left.
     
  18. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why don't we all just admit that in liberal's minds, SUV=redneck. That's what it boils down to. Prejudice against the working class, from the same folks who say they're only trying to help.
     
  19. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    One more thought.....

    I do not have a problem with the Kennedy's, the Clooney's, or the Sarandon's of the world owning several nice, big houses. What I have a problem with is the hypocritical nature of the left focusing on my SUV. It's either that they are stupid, and don't see the utter foolishness of their position, or they are hateful, prejudiced, elite working class haters.
     
  20. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you have a very handsome, well-shaped head.
    Better in what way? Housing has local, state and federal regulations which aren't uniform. For instance, California may have additional earthquake and/or fire codes to meet, while New York City forbids kerosene heaters and coal & PVC plumbing in multifamily residences. Some communities forbid McMansions (sq footage/lot size restrictions), others have strict standards on size and 'look'. Most states encourage minimum insulation, 'R' values for windows and enery-efficient appliances.

    The SUV-truck regulations will be the same throughout the country. You'll really have to be more specific on what you're comparing and how you define "better".

    Because that's a red herring. No one is trying to limit the number of SUVs & trucks you can have.
    Do you want to use more? Since I have to pay for the fuel I use, I prefer to use less.

    We don't admit it because it isn't true. SUV=suburban soccer mom, pick-up trucks=redneck (or used to - nowadays yuppies like pick-up trucks, too).

    Better fuel economy is prejudiced against the working class? I don't get your logic - as fuel prices increase, a more significant portion of their income goes for fuel. The richer you are, the lower the percent of your disposable income goes for fuel. Fuel economy is good for everyone, but best for those who pay for their own.

    Better emissions control is good for everyone. Have you noticed that it takes roadside snow a long time to turn black? It used to be mere days.
     

Share This Page

Loading...