THIS JUST IN: PRESIDENTS MAKE DECORATING CHANGES TO WHITE HOUSE WHEN THEY MOVE IN

1/24/2009 11:38:58 AM

Is it not ironic, quote from Obama:

He cited reports about companies "going out and renovating bathrooms or offices" and "the lack of accountability and transparency in how we are managing some of these programs to stabilize the financial system."

Too bad he is using the exact same decorator when our country is way more in debt than any of these banks.


[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2009 12:28:27 PM

i can see the fox headline now: OBAMA PUTS ON PANTS ONE LEG AT A TIME TOO, ABANDONS PLATFORM OF CHANGE

actually, i think im gonna go ahead and point out why we are all having fun with you. Obama has the same budget as other presidents, anything beyond that comes out of his pocket. so its a really dumb thing to get upset about, and you are a sheep to conservative talking heads.

[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2009 12:39:07 PM

1/24/2009 12:46:30 PM

^^ are the talking heads even talking about this? I didn't even think they were THAT dumb.

1/24/2009 12:48:13 PM

attn: assmonkeys who are letting the redecoration of the white house burn them up

its going to be a long fucking 8 years if the drapes have you this angry

1/24/2009 1:15:35 PM

the funny thing too is that people made fun of carter because he didnt spend money on anything, everyone accused his administration of being too casual

1/24/2009 2:33:54 PM

Obama: Give states more rights (regarding emissions):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123293646635914469.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

1/26/2009 12:53:16 AM

the whole thing about the 1.2 million to decorate an office has no bearing on the white house redecorating.

Quote :

"they'll have a $100,000 personal decorating budget to work with, and if they go over that budget, they'll have to get private donations to cover the cost of decorating their personal living areas. Any changes to public areas must be approved by a committee of preservationists, she says."

http://pnj004.cyberhomes.com/content/blog/09-01-07/Redecorating_the_White_House

1/26/2009 12:05:24 PM

moron, the funny thing about states setting thier own standards is that we have given how much money to help keep automakers open, yet now we are going to require them to produce 50 different types of the same car model to meet the states requirements?

Kinda funny

1/26/2009 2:31:07 PM

why would they make 50 different versions of 1 car? why wouldn't they just make 1 model that meets the strictest emission restrictions?

1/26/2009 2:37:10 PM

Quote :

"why would they make 50 different versions of 1 car? why wouldn't they just make 1 model that meets the strictest emission restrictions?"

because its more expensive than one with less restrictions? maybe the specs are different changing its horsepower output or torque? could be anything.

1/26/2009 2:43:11 PM

Quote :

"because its more expensive than one with less restrictions? maybe the specs are different changing its horsepower output or torque? could be anything."

So you know for certain that it is more costly to make a single more restrictive car than to maintain the tooling and support necessary for multiple versions? This could play out in so many different ways it isn't funny.

1) California enacts the standards

A) Other states follow, making the case for the most restrictive model make sense
B) Other states don't follow and all automakers still make a single most restrictive model
C) Other states don't follow and not all automakers shoot for the most restrictive model, leaving a bigger pie in Cali for the makers that did so that they recover their higher cost on the restrictive model (assuming the cost is higher)

2) California enacts the standards
A) Consumer balk at the higher price associated with the cars they have to purchase, California gets smart and backs off the standard
B) The tree hugging hippies love driving the better standards and gladly pay the extra costs

and so on and so forth

I think it's pretty telling that a staunch Republican like eyedrb is more concerned with whether this will hurt the automakers and not the idea that it will give rights to the states. That is, you'll try to find anything to pick qualms with over the actions of the Obama administration, even if the reality is it will be beneficial to your ideology. Sheesh.

1/26/2009 3:52:10 PM

Quote :

"So you know for certain that it is more costly to make a single more restrictive car than to maintain the tooling and support necessary for multiple versions? This could play out in so many different ways it isn't funny."

no, which is why I used the question mark.

however one thing we know, FOR CERTAIN, is that the automakers will be forced to build their cars to the strictest standards set forth by any one state because they dont have the $texas to build different versions.

thereby, giving a lot of influence and power to whatever state decides to be the douchiest.

1/26/2009 4:00:47 PM

Quote :

"however one thing we know, FOR CERTAIN, is that the automakers will be forced to build their cars to the strictest standards set forth by any one state because they dont have the $texas to build different versions. thereby, giving a lot of influence and power to whatever state decides to be the douchiest."

Wait, you don't know if it costs more to maintain slightly different versions of a vehicle to meet different restrictions, but you know for certain that this is what the states will do? Get the fuck outta here. This is just the Republicans seeing emissions and california in the same sentence and whining about the god damn Democrats sending the country to hell in a hand basket. This is what is great about letting States decide (to an extent) their own needs. The scale is much smaller and it is easier for big corporations to decide how to handle the business case. You guys should be applauding this move, but you're too hung up on finding all the Democratic and Obama flaws that you don't see the big picture.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2009 4:05:35 PM

well they already make cars with california emmisions package.. hell just listen to the price is right.


Nattr, I was very pleased to read that you would be concerned if obama said that about the stim package and getting reelected, It actually gave me some hope.. But please dont go on attacking a PARTY over this move. Its just common sense, I would hardly consider auto unions to be REPUBLICAN by any means, but even in the article it touches on this hurting automakers. Why the hostility?

Quote :

"The move will signal a major policy break from his predecessor on an issue that has divided key Democratic Party constituencies. Mr. Obama's announcement is almost certain to spark a war between two key Democratic constituencies: environmentalists and state officials who want power to set greenhouse-gas rules, and auto makers and unions who say such rules would exacerbate the industry's woes following the worst year of U.S. vehicle sales in more than a decade. "

Nattr, Im also FOR states rights.. however Im oppossed to bailing out the automakers.. So It does seem a little counter productive to say look im giving states the right(which i agree with) which will hurt the autos and unions so then Ill have to hand over FED dollars to. Seems like a lot of lip service to me.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2009 4:19:14 PM

Quote :

"Wait, you don't know if it costs more to maintain slightly different versions of a vehicle to meet different restrictions, but you know for certain that this is what the states will do? Get the fuck outta here. This is just the Republicans seeing emissions and california in the same sentence and whining about the god damn Democrats sending the country to hell in a hand basket. This is what is great about letting States decide (to an extent) their own needs. The scale is much smaller and it is easier for big corporations to decide how to handle the business case. You guys should be applauding this move, but you're too hung up on finding all the Democratic and Obama flaws that you don't see the big picture."

disregard cost. take cost out of the equation. maybe it would be cheaper to build a car to stricter standards. probably not, but maybe. that aside, 2 things will certainly happen.

1. car companies will likely adhere to the state's standards that are the toughest, as to avoid making several different versions of the same car. it would be inefficient to build several different versions of the same car.

2. individual states known for their strict emission standards will hold lots of power over the car companies. car companies will 'lobby' in these states. you can take it from there...we all know how scrupulous state politicians are, especially in our great state of NC.

1/26/2009 4:20:52 PM

Quote :

"moron, the funny thing about states setting thier own standards is that we have given how much money to help keep automakers open, yet now we are going to require them to produce 50 different types of the same car model to meet the states requirements? Kinda funny"

haha
:facepalm:

1/26/2009 4:21:49 PM

Quote :

"1. car companies will likely adhere to the state's standards that are the toughest, as to avoid making several different versions of the same car. it would be inefficient to build several different versions of the same car. "

Companies already do build several different version of a car. Ever heard of options? Car X gets premium radio, car Y doesn't, and so on. It is entirely possible the the stricter emission-ed car has a much more expensive cat converter on it in which case they just pass that on to consumers in Cali. I'm sure TkeTEG will be in here eventually to educate on this matter.

Quote :

" 2. individual states known for their strict emission standards will hold lots of power over the car companies. car companies will 'lobby' in these states. you can take it from there...we all know how scrupulous state politicians are, especially in our great state of NC."

We can only hope the citizens are informed enough to call the lawmakers on the shenanigans. Ask Dole how well we did.

1/26/2009 4:43:52 PM

Quote :

"Companies already do build several different version of a car. Ever heard of options? Car X gets premium radio, car Y doesn't, and so on. It is entirely possible the the stricter emission-ed car has a much more expensive cat converter on it in which case they just pass that on to consumers in Cali. I'm sure TkeTEG will be in here eventually to educate on this matter."

yes, if it is as easy as an optioning kit, it would not be a big deal. however, if there are design modifications required it obviously would be. you have a point.

I just cant help but think that some state cough*cali*cough wouldnt take advantage of the situation and make up some crazy shit effectively forcing the rest of the country to be as hippie as they are. maybe I am wrong.

1/26/2009 4:57:03 PM

this is so damn hilarious. Some of you conservatives in this thread are floundering. You were at first..

"IM AGAINST BAILING OUT THE SHITTY AUTO COMPANIES, CAPITALISM, LET THEM FAIL"

Now, Obama installs state rights to enforce ways to tell the auto companies - hey, your product isn't good enough for our roads, and now you're like...

"NOT FAIR FOR THE AUTO COMPANIES" but...but... "I'M STILL FOR STATE RIGHTS"


You just want to fucking pick a fight and churn some talking points. This is why I'm thankful conservatives can GTFO out of the Washington for this cycle because they're well, crazy...at least right now with such terrible leadership.

It's kinda like this bullshit talking points about the stimulus containing pork about promoting contraceptive usage. This is the same damn program that Nixon started. This program simply overhauls the waiver system for Medicaid family-planning coverage, which currently is difficult and expensive. In fact the congressions budget office estimated that the program waiver overhaul would save states 3-400 million over 10 years. And this is the best you can do as a talking point?

Conservatives are just pissed there's a popular president in there, and they're just blindly slinging shit to see what sticks is all.

1/26/2009 4:59:49 PM

You know, I gotta say, I like this move.

I'd just like to know why lefties like federalism when it comes to environmental laws, but not say, other kinds of issues. Unless this marks a new resurgent interest in federalism by Democrats? Which, suffice to say, would be remarkable.

1/26/2009 6:03:59 PM

From the WSJ article:

Quote :

"Under a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Mr. Obama's administration must determine whether greenhouse-gas emissions "endanger" public health or welfare, the legal trigger for regulating them under the federal Clean Air Act."

So if I understand this correctly, in order for State's to control emissions, then Obama would have to say that greenhouse-gas emissions do not endanger the public health or welfare.... I would laugh pretty fucking hard if he did so.

1/26/2009 7:04:28 PM

but they still would be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act would still serve as a minimum that states must comply with

1/26/2009 7:13:35 PM

Kainen, putting aside your political rant, do you not see the irony between handing out billions to an industry one week to try to help them stay above water, then passing a law that puts your foot on thier head and pushes down?

Yes handing over more power to the states IS the right thing to do, the problem is we have already committed billions to an industry that his hurt by this move. What is SO hard to understand?

Yes I lose sleep at night bc of fear of a POPULAR president... shut the fuck up already.

DrSteve, Im not sure its dems like federalism as much as its likeing anything obama does, although Id love to hear an answer to your question shoudl one choose to acknowledge it.

1/26/2009 7:46:07 PM

Quote :

"Kainen, putting aside your political rant, do you not see the irony between handing out billions to an industry one week to try to help them stay above water, then passing a law that puts your foot on thier head and pushes down?"

The Fed isn't pushing on their head dumbass, that onus will fall to California if that is what happens. And that is just one, not insignificant, but still small slice of pie compared to the entire country. AND....it isn't like any law California passes today is going to take effect immediately...AND...the US automakers have bigger problems than California emissions standards....which btw, they've been dealing with for what, a two decades or more now anyway?

Be honest, you're looking for any sort of screw to turn related to the new presidency, blind to your own politics if you have to.

Quote :

"DrSteve, Im not sure its dems like federalism as much as its likeing anything obama does, although Id love to hear an answer to your question shoudl one choose to acknowledge it."

I don't know how all his policies and politics are going to play out, but if leads down a path to smaller government, I'm all for it. Obama supporters can't help it that he is doing things we like. We also don't mind when people like you hate on us for it.

1/26/2009 7:53:14 PM

Quote :

"this is so damn hilarious. Some of you conservatives in this thread are floundering. You were at first.. "IM AGAINST BAILING OUT THE SHITTY AUTO COMPANIES, CAPITALISM, LET THEM FAIL" Now, Obama installs state rights to enforce ways to tell the auto companies - hey, your product isn't good enough for our roads, and now you're like... "NOT FAIR FOR THE AUTO COMPANIES" but...but... "I'M STILL FOR STATE RIGHTS" You just want to fucking pick a fight and churn some talking points. This is why I'm thankful conservatives can GTFO out of the Washington for this cycle because they're well, crazy...at least right now with such terrible leadership."

I don't think they understand nuance, compromise, or pragmatism.

This illustrates clearly though while the whole "states rights" thing is mostly a fantasy. It's very difficult in our modern society for anything to be reasonably controlled primarily by states, without causing a lot of other problems. I'm interested to see how this all turns out though.

1/26/2009 8:09:15 PM

nattr, the fed is pushing it? haha, ok man

Quote :

"I don't know how all his policies and politics are going to play out, but if leads down a path to smaller government, I'm all for it. "

Now this I agree with, but you actually believe this is what is happening? honestly? I mean that explains a lot.

1/26/2009 8:14:46 PM

That's cool that you ignored everything else I said which undermines anything you have to offer so far. It's typical you, get owned pretty badly, make some trite comment with a 'haha' at the end of it and thats it.

Quote :

"Now this I agree with, but you actually believe this is what is happening? honestly? "

What is your explanation of what is happening? Bonus points for which cooky right wing site you take your "explanation" from because I'm fairly convinced at this point you don't think up much of anything outside of health and insurance topics on your own.

Quote :

"I mean that explains a lot."

How old are you? If you have something to say, go on the damn record and say it.

1/26/2009 8:19:37 PM

what have you said that underminded my view?

Ok hoss, if you think Obama is going to lead us to smaller govt then you either arent very smart or just dont care to pay attention to what is being said. I hope im wrong but that is certainly the direction we are heading in. Clear enough?

1/26/2009 8:31:42 PM

Quote :

"what have you said that underminded my view?"

Pretty much everything myself and a couple others have said (including one of your own on the right) about giving California the right to set their own standards. You haven't really brought anything to the table about that discussion.

Quote :

"Ok hoss, if you think Obama is going to lead us to smaller govt then you either arent very smart or just dont care to pay attention to what is being said."

That isn't what I am saying you dipshit. What I did say is if they go through with this, it is a good development. If he does something else that isn't a good development, I'll say that to. You're the one that interjected this "do you really think he is going to be small government?" bullshit? When I replied that I had no idea, you keep pressing again and try to set my position that I think he will? What the fuck?

1/26/2009 8:36:37 PM

The thing I brought to the table was that this hurts the automakers nattr. Do you deny that?


Nattr, you gave the statement that moving towards a smaller govt is something you support, SO it would seem that you would be against an increase in govt right? However, then you try to act like you have "no idea"? seriously, have you looked at his website or heard of this thing going around about the american reinvestment plan?

Do you want me to explain how this will hurt the autos by allowing the states to choose thier own limits? (My gut tells me you are a pretty smart person and dont need me too, however, you seem more interested in argueing than hearing my point) Again, its not that I dont support this move, I just find the irony of the FED helping the autos in one move, then hurting them in another. Thats all im saying hoss.

1/26/2009 8:49:20 PM

Quote :

"The thing I brought to the table was that this hurts the automakers nattr. Do you deny that? "

Is reading a skill you've mastered yet? Have you ever heard of CARB? The automakers have been dealing with it since 1968. They immediately whacked the HP of the automobiles and attached smog equipment that killed the performance. Forty years later they are (for the time being) still here. You do realize that decades of low federal gasoline taxes did absolutely DICK to save the automakers from themselves, right?

Quote :

"Nattr, you gave the statement that moving towards a smaller govt is something you support, SO it would seem that you would be against an increase in govt right? However, then you try to act like you have "no idea"? seriously, have you looked at his website or heard of this thing going around about the american reinvestment plan?"

I'm sorry but I don't deal in absolutes like you apparently do. I also don't try to invent stupid arguments within the framework of a completely different discussion. Can I be for more States rights on certain (most?) issues, but for national health care? Would that make your head explode?

Quote :

"Do you want me to explain how this will hurt the autos by allowing the states to choose thier own limits? (My gut tells me you are a pretty smart person and dont need me too, however, you seem more interested in argueing than hearing my point) Again, its not that I dont support this move, I just find the irony of the FED helping the autos in one move, then hurting them in another. Thats all im saying hoss."

Sure, I'd love to see your case. Feel free to contemplate what I posted in this post before you reply.

1/26/2009 9:05:49 PM

Quote :

"Ok hoss, if you think Obama is going to lead us to smaller govt then you either arent very smart or just dont care to pay attention to what is being said. I hope im wrong but that is certainly the direction we are heading in. Clear enough? "

Surely Sarah Palin would have helped John McCain restore freedom and power to the people!!!

1/26/2009 9:14:45 PM

Clearly nattr, Im an idiot for thinking this will hurt the autos... and the auto industry and unions are too apparently. Seeing how they just cant change their manufacturing as quickly as a state can change thier standards will hurt thier sales and increase thier prices. For instance it takes years for them to design cars and retool their factories to build a car.. then some guy in florida wants to out do california and lowers thier standards which means that the new car either wont be sold in florida or they will have to retool/design to meet the new standards.

ahah, and you attack me for changing the subject. No, you said you were for smaller govt and NOW are throwing in your hat for nationalized healthcare? Yes, you changing your views around does give me a headache.

1/26/2009 9:15:16 PM

Quote :

"Clearly nattr, Im an idiot for thinking this will hurt the autos... and the auto industry and unions are too apparently. "

Sure, no one likes new taxes just like no industry likes new regulation. But the field will be level for all automakers, and the new standards won't take effect overnight. In 1966, California enacted tail pipe emissions standards. In 1966, you could buy a car with a smog pump on it.

Quote :

"No, you said you were for smaller govt and NOW are throwing in your hat for nationalized healthcare? Yes, you changing your views around does give me a headache."

Like I said, you have a pretty tough time with reading comprehension. I said this:

Quote :

"This is what is great about letting States decide (to an extent) their own needs. "

If we can't get get 535 people to make the same decision on broad sweeping changes that effect energy and environmental policy on a national scale because of partisan bickering and bullshit then I am all for letting individual states take a crack at it. Same with national health care if it makes sense to do it at a state level.

1/26/2009 9:53:40 PM

Quote :

"Conservatives are just pissed there's a popular president in there, and they're just blindly slinging shit to see what sticks is all."

so is there a timeline on when the smug gloating bragfest will get old?

1/26/2009 10:09:20 PM

^ There is, but we haven't reached their yet

But the conservatives were gloating until the very end, so assuming liberals are half as bad as conservatives, you can expect gloating for the next 4 years (because Obama will get reelected, you heard it here first folks).

1/26/2009 10:18:12 PM

how's this for a change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/al-arabiya-obama-does-fir_n_161087.html

Quote :

"Obama On Al-Arabiya: First Formal Interview As President With Arabic Cable TV Network"

just saw some of the interview on CNN.

I'm sure he will be crucified from the Right for this interview, but I think it's great. I mean - what has Bush and Co. told us time and time again for the past 8 years is the most grave threat to our way of life? Muslims, and Islamic radicals. And Bush's approach? Bomb and kill as many of them as possible.

But Obama is showing right out of the gate that he is actually willing to reach out and talk to these people, instead of making vague threats from the saftey of the White House press room.

1/26/2009 10:48:29 PM

^ I briefly caught some arab analyst talking about how Obama didn't speak in vague generalities and throw around terms like "axis of evil" and "islamic terrorism" and that he thought the arab community would see this as a sign that Obama is serious about solutions, which is something they never thought of Bush.

1/26/2009 11:15:04 PM

Quote :

"If we can't get get 535 people to make the same decision on broad sweeping changes that effect energy and environmental policy on a national scale because of partisan bickering and bullshit then I am all for letting individual states take a crack at it. Same with national health care if it makes sense to do it at a state level."

This should have happened from the get go.

People seemed to have forgotten in this day in time about states rights and the 10th amendment. I think this country would be a lot better off by letting a lot more issues being taken care of at the state level. The most pressing one in my mind is education. NCLB should NEVER have been created and I think the Federal gov't should be a guide not a dictator of educational policy within a certain extent (of course we wouldn't let Alabama let them teach pro-confederate states of American history). This would hold state boards a lot more accountable for their educational systems.

1/26/2009 11:21:48 PM

Quote :

"Clearly nattr, Im an idiot for thinking this will hurt the autos... and the auto industry and unions are too apparently. Seeing how they just cant change their manufacturing as quickly as a state can change thier standards will hurt thier sales and increase thier prices. For instance it takes years for them to design cars and retool their factories to build a car.. then some guy in florida wants to out do california and lowers thier standards which means that the new car either wont be sold in florida or they will have to retool/design to meet the new standards. "

this is my point.

enough with the 'sore loser' BS. I want BO to succeed. I just find fault with some of his recent initiatives because I believe they are short sighted.

1/27/2009 9:18:54 AM

As a republican, you think giving more power to the states is short sighted? That is your position? You guys are unbelievable, you really are.


[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 9:53 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2009 9:50:56 AM

car emission standards isnt exactly giving government back to the states. its a back-handed way to get the most stringent car emission standards possible implemented on a large scale without directly having to get said standards passed through congress. I see it for what it is.

you could at least pretend to have an open mind and consider the point. or the golden boy can forever and always stay golden to you. up to you.

1/27/2009 11:49:24 AM

^ It's not as insidious as you make it out to be. Is that what the righties are saying about this though?

1/27/2009 12:22:28 PM

Quote :

"its a back-handed way to get the most stringent car emission standards possible"

Really, so the same lawmakers who said no to similar legislation in congress are going to say yes in their own states, and legislation that wouldn't pass for the whole country will suddenly pass for the whole country? Do you think about what you type or do you just echo chamber the shit that is spewed on Fox News Channel?

Quote :

"you could at least pretend to have an open mind and consider the point. or the golden boy can forever and always stay golden to you. up to you."

If I gave you a list of things that I don't agree with that the Obama administration has done so far, would that get you to shut up about this whole "golden boy" and "messiah" sour grapes crap?

1/27/2009 12:46:51 PM

Quote :

"Really, so the same lawmakers who said no to similar legislation in congress are going to say yes in their own states, and legislation that wouldn't pass for the whole country will suddenly pass for the whole country? Do you think about what you type or do you just echo chamber the shit that is spewed on Fox News Channel?"

FAIL

the people in congress dont write laws for their state. the people in the state legislature do that. the car companies will LIKELY have to build their vehicles to the strictest standards set forth by any one state and apply those nationally, from an efficiency standpoint (unless the differences are minor enough to be adjusted locally). let me try to explain it to you in a different way.

why would Ford build any trucks that they could only sell in certain states? they are going to build vehicles that apply universally to all states by making the most hardcore emission standard the baseline of their vehicles. the laws passed in the strictest state will become the de facto laws for the entire country because Ford is not going to build several different engines for one vehicle to comply with everyone's different standards.

did you really just try to make a fox news reference and then say I had sour grapes? so your generalizations are ok and mine arent? thats what TSB is.

1/27/2009 1:46:35 PM

^this is correct. Obama knows that he probably couldn't get a majority of federal legislators to agree on a standard, so he lets a gigantic market like California set the standard for them.

this would have failed if it was say, South Dakota that wanted the emissions standards. the car manufacturers would have stopped sending cars there.



[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 1:57 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/27/2009 1:56:48 PM

Quote :

"the people in congress dont write laws for their state. the people in the state legislature do that."

Yeah, brain fart on my part. The point is, it makes sense to let states decide for themselves on a matter like this.

Quote :

"the car companies will LIKELY have to build their vehicles to the strictest standards set forth by any one state and apply those nationally, from an efficiency standpoint (unless the differences are minor enough to be adjusted locally)."

Wow, there are slivers of brain cells left in your head. That is exactly the point, neither you or I know at this point how the automakers will have to handle the regulations. They already have different versions of the same car, it's entirely likely a more expensive cat converter and an ECU reprogramming will be enough to make the restriction. I said this once already. The field will be level for every maker in that state, so the smartest and best innovators in the industry will win. Isn't that what you want?

Quote :

"because Ford is not going to build several different engines for one vehicle to comply with everyone's different standards"

If it makes economic sense for Ford to do that, they will. Just like Toyota, Honda, and ever other car maker. I pointed this out multiple posts above and all you've done is repeat what you have said before and haven't addressed the points I already made to undermine this topic. It's reasons like this I label you a Fox News echo chamber, because so far, you haven't done any real critical thinking about this topic.

Quote :

"^this is correct. Obama knows that he probably couldn't get a majority of federal legislators to agree on a standard, so he lets a gigantic market like California set the standard for them."

You can go to Wikipedia right now and realize what you are saying has already been debunked with standards set in the early 90s.

1/27/2009 2:41:15 PM

Im actually happy Obama stepped up to pelosi and removed the condom thing from the stimulus plan. Hopefully he will remove the possible acorn funding too.

btw, I agree with paying for birthcontrol, it just has no business being in a job growth bill.

1/27/2009 3:01:54 PM