Quote :

"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."

What exactly is your point? How is this much different that how things are now? WHy is this Obama's concern?

1/27/2009 3:10:29 PM

point is

Quote :

"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."

nattrngnabob has the balls to talk about my 'brain slivers' when he is the one that thought the congress made state laws? he then blasts my statement by highlighting a portion of it and agreeing with it? what an idiot. like a child, you are not even capable of acknowledging any point in the argument and insist making stupid 'fox news' comments. are they even talking about this shit on fox news? are you just making that up to sound cooler to your jon stewart-loving friends?

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : ,,]

1/27/2009 3:21:30 PM

Quote :

"nattrngnabob has the balls to talk about my 'brain slivers' when he is the one that thought the congress made state laws? "

FFS you faggot, I admitted it was a brain fart. Half the time when I post shit I have an eye on multiple stock screens or other shit more important than clowning idiots like you.

Quote :

"he then blasts my statement by highlighting a portion of it and agreeing with it? "

I'm blasting you for thinking "FORD IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS FOR CERTAIN BECAUSE OF THIS BACKDOOR WAY FOR STRICTER STANDARDS"...unless they don't have to. I can't help you can't see the lunacy of your own comments.

Quote :

"you are not even capable of acknowledging any point in the argument and insist making stupid"

Are you joking. You just admitted I agreed with a point you made, but I don't acknowledge it?

I'll take how do you know when you're an idiot for $500, Alex

The bottom line is you and your ilk made the point. And that is this is a backdoor for tougher emissions standards. That's all you've said.

I presented multiple different concepts for

A) How long it might take something like this to have an effect
B) How the automakers reacted in the past
C) How they might react in the future
D) How it is a good thing for States to control their own destiny

WHAT HAVE YOU ADDED TO THE CONVERSATION? Anything? Other than repeating the same misinformed point over and over again and then crying when we call you an echo chamber?

1/27/2009 3:32:30 PM

ok. feel like a tough guy now with your petty insults? is your blood pressure still up?

I want and agree that we need a smaller federal government. however, there are some things that it just makes sense to regulate on a federal level and one of those things is emission standards for vehicles. items like vehicles that are produced on a large, national scale, which are so integral to our economy and commerce should be regulated as a whole, not as a clusterfuck of 50 different sets of laws and regulations. much like food and drug standards.

get it now, or is that to simplistic/fox news for you? dont forget to keep your 'eye on the stocks'

1/27/2009 3:50:14 PM

^ What do you think WOULD be good for states to control, that wouldn't result in a "clusterfuck"?

1/27/2009 4:00:58 PM

building codes (seasonal differences vary from state to state) is one that jumps right out at me. it works well tailored to each state's needs.

EDIT

let me think about that. dont have an answer off the top of my head for something currently regulated at the Federal level that would be done better at the State level.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ..]

1/27/2009 4:05:19 PM

Quote :

"however, there are some things that it just makes sense to regulate on a federal level and one of those things is emission standards for vehicles."

Really, so a small town farmer in rural bumfuck needs to have the same low pollution vehicle as those sitting in gridlock on LA freeways? REALLY? Or, would you just rather the actual emission standard be so low that it doesn't matter? I suppose on a long enough scale you'd have some pretty severe death rates in those high pollution areas and ultimately the free market would dictate they'll move to cleaner areas. My guess is you haven't even thought of your position in this way as it internally conflicts with your small government free market leanings.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2009 4:09:23 PM

Quote :

"let me think about that. dont have an answer off the top of my head for something currently regulated at the Federal level that would be done better at the State level."

how about powers not specifically given to the federal government in the constitution.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2009 4:09:56 PM

Quote :

"Really, so a small town farmer in rural bumfuck needs to have the same low pollution vehicle as those sitting in gridlock on LA freeways? REALLY? Or, would you just rather the actual emission standard be so low that it doesn't matter? I suppose on a long enough scale you'd have some pretty severe death rates in those high pollution areas and ultimately the free market would dictate they'll move to cleaner areas. My guess is you haven't even thought of your position in this way as it internally conflicts with your small government free market leanings."

yo homes to Bel Air!!

1/27/2009 4:19:45 PM

You're intellectually bankrupt you meathead. Lay off the roids.

1/27/2009 4:23:37 PM

LOL...a little insecure are we?

1/28/2009 8:46:35 AM

Quote :

"Half the time when I post shit I have an eye on multiple stock screens or other shit more important than clowning idiots like you."

damn multiple stock screens AND posting on TWW, you're fucking awesome

1/28/2009 8:52:38 AM

Thanks?

1/28/2009 8:57:19 AM

to put the thread back on track...

Id like some honest opinions on the 'stimulus' package currently being brokered. Some of it seems like legitimate spending...infrastructure, state help, unemployment. The rest seems like nothing but a large earmark. What say you?

1/28/2009 9:01:09 AM

Look two threads down meaty. Damn.

1/28/2009 9:02:54 AM

Quote :

"meaty"

funny. thats what your mom calls me.

IN BEFORE THE LOCK

1/28/2009 9:04:26 AM

Rofl, so not only are you a moron but you have terrible jokes as well?

1/28/2009 9:31:45 AM

Quote :

"damn multiple stock screens AND posting on TWW, you're fucking awesome"

This made me laugh.


Ok, so why is Obama and dems going after Rush? online petition are you serious?

And another thing, has anyone noticed how cnn, msnbc, etc are painting the repubs as obstructionist for questioning this bill? they keep saying how obama won and they should just go along with what he wants. But this was exactly the same bullshit line bush gave us with the first bailout.. "dont read it, think about it, or do your congressional duty to question the executive branch.. trust me.. we need to do this now...or else."

1/28/2009 9:40:42 AM

Can you start linking to things you are talking about? I can imagine the large majority of the non hooksaws here aren't going to know what the right wingers are crying about.

Quote :

"And another thing, has anyone noticed how cnn, msnbc, etc are painting the repubs as obstructionist for questioning this bill?"

I've been watching a ton of cnbc the past few days, all day, and I don't get this impression. At all. Mind citing some commentators or segments or something?

1/28/2009 9:48:34 AM

What do you need a link for?

Ive only seen the tone of the cnn and msnbc things last night. I suppose they might be youtubed, but I doubt it.

1/28/2009 10:02:58 AM

Quote :

"Ok, so why is Obama and dems going after Rush? online petition are you serious?"

LINK?!

1/28/2009 10:11:38 AM

Obama has mentioned Rush lately. Let me find a link for one.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm

And here is the online petition.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/dems-launch-online-petition-rush-limbaugh/

Most articles Ive read and even the youtube petition video is shockling taken out of context with what he really said and meant. Here is the whole interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4YcwI4NlKA



[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2009 10:22:51 AM

rush has been off the reservation lately, but Obama only gives him more credibility by talking about him.

1/28/2009 10:24:30 AM

at the 5:22 mark is when he asks about him succeeding. he actually has a good response which has since been clipped and made to sound not like its intent.. but I guess thats good propaganda.

1/28/2009 10:32:08 AM

So back to your original quote

Quote :

"Ok, so why is Obama and dems going after Rush? online petition are you serious? "

He wasn't going after Rush, though I can see how a partisan right wing yoyo like yourself would phrase it that way.

And what do you expect a coalition of Democrats to do when the most popular right wing radio pill head says he wants the President to fail? The same one who was castigating Democrats (well, anyone) for questioning Bush post 9/11? Do you expect them to just do nothing? You're a real boob man. I don't think I could live in your shoes of polarized thinking and one rigid viewpoint with everything in black and white. Shit would be unsettling.

1/28/2009 10:34:36 AM

or course you couldnt live in my shoes, for one I dont have several computer monitors on etrade. Bummer dude.


Did you watch the video? Or like the political boob hacks, whatever your insult of choice today is, did you just hear he didnt want him to succeed and then form your opinion. If you listen to what he says, I totally agree with him and his point. I even gave you the time when the question was asked bc I know you are a busy man with TWW and all your stock trading to watch the whole 9 mins.

So yeah, telling people not to listen to rush, then the media bilitz and online petition that comes after is not really going after him at all or trying to discredit or marginalize him? yes, and im the political hack.



[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2009 10:38:50 AM

Would you stop being a dumbass for a second. I said OBAMA wasn't going after Rush. Can you read?

I don't have my headphones with me so I can't listen to your clips.

1/28/2009 10:44:51 AM

So where did you hear he wants him to fail? Didnt seem like an odd thing to say? and you didnt care to read into the comment more? Just figured oh its rush, its probably accurate?

Not really a knock on you, just on society.. we have become a bunch of headline readers and dont really care to question some of the info we are being feed.

Another thing that puts me off is the "I won" attitude, now back what I do. Its fine if you agree with what he is doing, but you just dont bow down because someone is president. That is no different that bush post 9/11, imo. When some questions should have been asked.

[Edited on January 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

1/28/2009 10:46:47 AM

From Rush himself

Quote :

"Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it. "

And you wonder why Democratic groups start petition and make youtube clips? Are you this thickheaded?

1/28/2009 10:56:53 AM

I do wonder why they would start a petition actually? bc they disagree with what he says? Personally, I dont.

When you get home or are able to listen to the link i provided, listen to it. Its more in context and doesnt sound as sinister as simply "I hope obama fails", he actually gives conditions. He also says he hope he succeeds too.. but I doubt youll see that on whatever website forms your opinions.

1/28/2009 11:00:31 AM

eyedb I'm glad you care so much about your precious talking point.

Quote :

"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?"

1/28/2009 11:01:56 AM

Kainen, I dont follow. You think I said that? Help me out

1/28/2009 11:04:49 AM

Quote :

"When you get home or are able to listen to the link i provided, listen to it. Its more in context and doesnt sound as sinister as simply "I hope obama fails", he actually gives conditions. He also says he hope he succeeds too.. but I doubt youll see that on whatever website forms your opinions."

I don't need to see the link. I can read about what happened.

Rush said he hoped the stimulus plan failed
Reporters misquoted him and made a fuss about it
He double speaks and then says "sure, go ahead and quote me wanting him to just fail"
Then eventually backpedals, defaulting to talking about the original comments and not the escalated singular comment

It's pretty much classic Rush in it's purest.

The fact that you seem to be so aghast that a group with different ideas and values (the Dem petitioners) would compete in the marketplace of ideas (with Rush) is rather sad really.

The fact that you can't see the whole thing for what it is is really sad, and why I can't walk in your shoes. You're going through life with some pretty tight blinders.

1/28/2009 11:12:00 AM

well since you refuse to watch, I found the transcript for ya there buddy.

RUSH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that very thing. "Well, we want him to succeed," and prominent Republicans! "Yes, we want him to succeed." They have laid down. They have totally. They're drinking the Kool-Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism. They're afraid of being called racists. They're afraid of not having gotten with the program. Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier, "I don't know about this guy." I really don't. I've got my suspicions and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln --

HANNITY: (laughing)

RUSH: -- and if he does cut some taxes --

HANNITY: Yeah.

RUSH: -- if he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he's going to do FDR -- if he's going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal -- why would I want him to succeed? Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. If he is going to implement a far-left agenda... Look, I think it's already decided: a $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government? I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it, because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail." If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT


HANNITY: You want your country to succeed, and you believe that his views implemented represent failure, predictable failure, and conservatism would represent predictable success.

RUSH: Well, I don't know where what he wants to try has worked. It didn't work in the Soviet Union. It doesn't work in China. They're having to become like us in China in order to survive. It hasn't worked in Cuba. It hasn't worked! It didn't work when the Pilgrims arrived. They tried socialism. Remember, they had a plot of ground, they shared what they produced, and the slackers figured out they didn't have to produce anything to get goodies. So William Bradford said, "The heck with this," and he said, "Okay, you get to keep everything you produce, and you're not sharing it." So everybody had to work. They were really giving thanks to God for the lesson that socialism failed. It has never worked. The New Deal didn't work. You know, Hoover was president through the Depression for one year. FDR prolonged the depression for seven or eight years, and yet he's given credit for ending the Depression. It didn't happen! World War II ended the Depression. The New Deal didn't work. This is New New Deal. It doesn't work. If it works, it will be the first time that it works, but it never has, and I don't think this is going to be the record breaker.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012209/content/01125106.guest.html

1/28/2009 11:18:01 AM

Way ahead of you man. Way ahead of you.

1/28/2009 11:23:50 AM

Quote :

"So where did you hear he wants him to fail? Didnt seem like an odd thing to say? and you didnt care to read into the comment more? Just figured oh its rush, its probably accurate? Not really a knock on you, just on society.. we have become a bunch of headline readers and dont really care to question some of the info we are being feed."

Or maybe we just don't care about Rush Limbaugh.

1/28/2009 4:03:04 PM

Quote :

"at the 5:22 mark is when he asks about him succeeding. he actually has a good response which has since been clipped and made to sound not like its intent.. but I guess thats good propaganda."

Ha, you call that a "good response?"

1/28/2009 5:56:41 PM

I don't see anything wrong with what Rush said, when I look at all of it. I don't want Obama to succeed in implementing his brand of government, either. People just want a little sound byte so they can say "Look! Rush hates America, he wants our country to fail!" Have some sense.

1/28/2009 6:58:47 PM

^ You have to look at the subtext of what Rush is saying.

And he WANTS people to talk about him, that's why he said what he said in the most inflammatory way possible. We are all suckered in to his game by even talking about him, I probably have to go shower with bleach now.

1/28/2009 7:09:45 PM

Quote :

"I don't see anything wrong with what Rush said, when I look at all of it. I don't want Obama to succeed in implementing his brand of government, either. People just want a little sound byte so they can say "Look! Rush hates America, he wants our country to fail!" Have some sense. "

exactly, and if you look at the online democratic petition and video, all they did was clip parts from that interview.

They know most of the people that view it wont care to know the context.

1/28/2009 9:33:14 PM

^ the context only makes Rush look worse.

Instead of blind stupidity, you see calculated inanity.

[Edited on January 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ]

1/29/2009 11:45:51 AM

Quote :

"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."

Sorry to backtrack, but I haven't been in TSB much recently. While CA has had stricter standards than most states over the last two decades, only within the last 5-7 years have I really noticed it affecting what automakers sell in the US. Several cars sold these days are sold as 48 state legal, and then as CA/NY legal. Usually the CA models cost a bit more and have less power (5-10, not a huge deal). Some other states have raised their emission regulation (NJ, CT come to mind) and sometimes a car (configured a certain way) is only 45 state legal. Usually its an issue with one of the engines offered. I've never seen a car sold only in 48 of the states, entirely excluding CA (by this I mean model, not an option package or engine configuration). More recently a lot more diesel models are being offered and a lot of these are not offered for sale in CA. A pity given their low (compared to gasoline powered) CO2 emissions.

1/29/2009 1:37:21 PM