Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:As dogma said, it was a lousy article. It was lousy because it pretended emissions standards are uniform across all types of cars. It was lousy because it pretended Obama was doing something that was completely out of left field, which is just not true. This is just another Obama step to undo the work of Bush.

What Obama is proposing is to return to a pre-Bush situation, where states are allowed to regulate their own emissions. Bush had previously come down on the side of the automakers, and forced California to give up its higher standards. This appears a welcome return to state’s rights, something that’s very important to the right wing until a Democrat supports it.

Not all "right wing" people are represented by the OP either

Kilkrazy wrote:It surprises me that the Japanese haven't gone in for geothermal at all. They have a lot of nuclear and they have lots of volcanically active areas.

See, I always assumed they did. That is a good question, why wouldn't they?

Grignard wrote:Not all "right wing" people are represented by the OP either

Fair point, I was using a generalisation that doesn’t cover all right wingers. There are certainly right wing folk that care about environmental regulation and state’s rights, and ones that care for one or the other of those two issues. And there are right wingers that don’t care much for each, but are consistent in their beliefs and arguments. My complaint is with those folk that will be shocked at an apparent loss of state’s rights one moment, and then completely alright with it in the next situation, depending on which party is doing it.

Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion? Or that the folk that said that after eight years in office, it’s too early to judge the Bush presidency, but seem to think one week into the Obama administration there’s enough info to write him off?

sebster wrote:

Grignard wrote:Not all "right wing" people are represented by the OP either

Fair point, I was using a generalisation that doesn’t cover all right wingers. There are certainly right wing folk that care about environmental regulation and state’s rights, and ones that care for one or the other of those two issues. And there are right wingers that don’t care much for each, but are consistent in their beliefs and arguments. My complaint is with those folk that will be shocked at an apparent loss of state’s rights one moment, and then completely alright with it in the next situation, depending on which party is doing it.

Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion? Or that the folk that said that after eight years in office, it’s too early to judge the Bush presidency, but seem to think one week into the Obama administration there’s enough info to write him off?

Yah, everyone is a hypocrite. My personal gripe with my right wing friends are that they'll rail on against the government ( I can feel that ) but then expect people to put up with all manner of abuse from private corporations. My argument that corporate bodies, public or private, are not individuals and don't have the same rights. Or that they'll stick up for 2nd amendment rights but as soon as Marylin Manson releases his next album, well, that needs to be legislated. To protect children you see.....

Grignard wrote:Yah, everyone is a hypocrite. My personal gripe with my right wing friends are that they'll rail on against the government ( I can feel that ) but then expect people to put up with all manner of abuse from private corporations. My argument that corporate bodies, public or private, are not individuals and don't have the same rights. Or that they'll stick up for 2nd amendment rights but as soon as Marylin Manson releases his next album, well, that needs to be legislated. To protect children you see.....

The world is a complicated place and some hypocrisy is probably inevitable. At least your friends sound like they’re being genuine, even if their values aren’t always consistent. Compare that to someone like the OP, who picks and chooses his beliefs based on whatever he can attack the Democrats on.



By the way, JonHwangDD, I think you assumed I was talking about you in my earlier post, probably because we both mentioned state’s rights. That wasn’t my intention. I think that needs clearing up in case you think my criticism of the OP is being levelled at you as well. We disagree on most things, but I think you’re being honest in all your posts, and coming from a consistent POV. You just happen to be wrong

One of the main reasons the US auto industry is such a shambles is that they have been fighting having to make 'low emissions' cars for years, whilst other companies have just done it.

China has stricter emissions regulations than California. So that is a market the US industry cannot export most of their cars to.

if they had seen the way the customers and govts had shifted the last 5-10 years, like Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, the european makers had and like them just gone out and fixed things to comply they wouldn't be whining RE: having to put up costs/lose markets.

The more I see of the US auto industry (the big 3) the more I'm convinced it is, and has been for a long time, being run by the biggest bunchof incompetents in the history of business, but who are smart enough to sucker millions of dollars in wages out of the companies.

I think one reason might be that they released substandard products for many years. If I purchased a taco salad from taco bell, and that salad was filled with fecal matter, then I probably would not do business with them again.

My favorite fact about the US auto industry:

A few years ago GM commissioned a consumer survey in order to gauge the appetites of its clientele. Good business policy normally. Unfortunately, GM is not a normal business. Instead of forcing the consumer to make a choice between two desirable options the survey presented one choice which was clearly superior to the other, with a neutral response for control. One example was: Would you prefer -

A. More horsepower

B. Less horsepower

C. No preference

As you can probably imagine GM ended up with a massive collection of results that essentially indicated that either people didn't care, or wanted more horsepower. Such brilliance from the mavens of Detroit.

The industry in the US has indeed been producing substandard product for years, yes. But, they have also been relying heavily on they "showcase" cars. ie. the Mustang, Corvette, and Viper, as well as the advertisements afforded them in NASCAR, which i truly abhor.

NASCAR is the biggest aberration to the world of automobile racing ever created. this coming from an american: i am a huge fan of F-1 and the WRC (God, i cant wait to be living in germany!)

sebster wrote:

Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion? Or that the folk that said that after eight years in office, it’s too early to judge the Bush presidency, but seem to think one week into the Obama administration there’s enough info to write him off?

Thats not a correct statement. 1) I haven't changed. 2) It is too early too judge but I can comment as he goes along. So far he's batting B+ which is not bad.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:The industry in the US has indeed been producing substandard product for years, yes. But, they have also been relying heavily on they "showcase" cars. ie. the Mustang, Corvette, and Viper, as well as the advertisements afforded them in NASCAR, which i truly abhor.

NASCAR is the biggest aberration to the world of automobile racing ever created. this coming from an american: i am a huge fan of F-1 and the WRC (God, i cant wait to be living in germany!)

Hey now, NASCAR is ok...it just can hardly be called "stock car" racing anymore.

Frazzled wrote:Thats not a correct statement. 1) I haven't changed. 2) It is too early too judge but I can comment as he goes along. So far he's batting B+ which is not bad.

I didn't say you'd done it, you're not the only right winger I know. Don't worry Fraz, when I've got something to call you out on, I quote you

JohnHwangDD wrote:Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I'm all for state's rights, and have no problem with states setting their own emissions and mileage standards.

I just expect that the additional costs for meeting state-by-state variances from the Federal baseline should be borne by those states.

If that means that California gets its wish of pricing cars out of the reach of common citizens, so be it.

Citizen revolt will throw the bums out and order will be restored.

Eventually.

Given the easy availability of low emission vehicles from makers such as Toyota, they may actually be cheaper than American made cars as well as being cheaper to run.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats not a correct statement. 1) I haven't changed. 2) It is too early too judge but I can comment as he goes along. So far he's batting B+ which is not bad.

I didn't say you'd done it, you're not the only right winger I know. Don't worry Fraz, when I've got something to call you out on, I quote you

Is there also not an argument here that any changes made by California/wherever also actually represents a possible business venture/gap in the market for someone to exploit ? You know-- like should happen in a capitalist society ?

From memory America is generally quite pro this concept I had been led to believe.

The down side is that:
1. California is known for being a bit wackjobbish. They could create enviro regs that cost thousands of dollars.
2. It opens the door to every other state doing the same.

1. California is a democracy. I doubt they will really manage to outlaw cars.

2. Ditto for every other state.

sebster wrote:
Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion?

Wow you just devalued all of your arguments so far, good job. Maybe 1 person out of the 5 you talk to can be considered "all those folk" in your little world. Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.

And don't even get me started on the whiny pimple faced queerbucks drinking libs who cried corcodile tears when bush was in office for 8 years.

THEY BOO'D A PRESIDENT! They boo'd Bush as he came up the steps of the inauguration, and youre telling me people have no respect? That moment made me ashamed to even be American that these yuppy ass little girls are even getting what they think they want.

PanamaG wrote:

sebster wrote:
Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion?

Wow you just devalued all of your arguments so far, good job. Maybe 1 person out of the 5 you talk to can be considered "all those folk" in your little world. Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.

And don't even get me started on the whiny pimple faced queerbucks drinking libs who cried corcodile tears when bush was in office for 8 years.

THEY BOO'D A PRESIDENT! They boo'd Bush as he came up the steps of the inauguration, and youre telling me people have no respect? That moment made me ashamed to even be American that these yuppy ass little girls are even getting what they think they want.

Now that you have a point on, in spite of the fact that you expressed it in manner totally lacking any civility or respect. Sure, I agree that now that the shoe is on the other foot you'll see the hypocrites come out, people who expect you to respect the office while the whole time they were saying nasty little things about the Bushes, sometimes without any relevance to the legitimate concerns about some of his policies.

If you really believe in what you talk about, then you seriously need to work on how you express yourself. You're coming off as a carciature, an antagonistic one at that.

Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president

except in sigs on forums presumably ?

But they may just write the obituary of the American auto industry.

Impartial media writing at its best.

PanamaG wrote:

sebster wrote:
Have you noticed, by the way, all those folk that believed you must respect the office of the President seemed to have moved on from that notion?

Wow you just devalued all of your arguments so far, good job. Maybe 1 person out of the 5 you talk to can be considered "all those folk" in your little world. Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.

And don't even get me started on the whiny pimple faced queerbucks drinking libs who cried corcodile tears when bush was in office for 8 years.

THEY BOO'D A PRESIDENT! They boo'd Bush as he came up the steps of the inauguration, and youre telling me people have no respect? That moment made me ashamed to even be American that these yuppy ass little girls are even getting what they think they want.

You're either the best troll I've seen in weeks or a sad, depressed, and angry 14 year old. Perhaps both.

Actually he has a point. The amount of votriol thrown at Bush/Cheney has been historic. There was no "respecting the office of President" going on from the left, or the hard right for that matter.

Both sides have now officially do's'do'ed.

Yeah, but pimplefaced queerbacks? The hell does that even mean?

You got me. All you hooligans with your hep cat language all sound a like to me. Now get off my lawn!

actually... doing abit of reading into that post... its "pimplefaced queerbacks drinkers"

im assuming you can figure out the pimple faced bit there... and i think id be spot on if i went out on a limb and said that "queerbacks" in proper english terms.. is "Starbucks" the Tyranid-esque coffee chain.

Frazzled wrote:Actually he has a point. The amount of votriol thrown at Bush/Cheney has been historic. There was no "respecting the office of President" going on from the left, or the hard right for that matter.

Both sides have now officially do's'do'ed.

To be fair, it was already there with Republicans vs the Clintons. I remember Jimmy Carter getting widely lampooned too.

To be totally fair, the USA has had some other much-disrespected presidents in the past -- Warren Harding hit some low notes.

I think it's also possible, and indeed mandatory, to seperate respect for the office, respect for the person holding the office, respect the man, and respect for his policies.

I'd argue that the office deserves a lot of respect, and a person in their role as an officer deserves respect as well. Booing at an inauguration is churlish. The person himself, well, he's not a god, or a king. He's a man that has stengths and weaknesses and they're going to be exposed, as yes mocked. Wethere it's Grover Cleveland's bastard son or Ford's clumsiness or Clinton's sex mania: these are things that are going to be mocked.

Finally, a presidents policies and actions deserve respect only to the extent that they have merit. It's every American's duty to gather as much info and form an opinion on a matter before they discuss it. There's nothing wrong with trusting your officials, but any specific defense or attack on policy should be at least a litttle informed. the whole Dubai ports thing was a classic example of people having no clue about a topic making an ass of themselves on both sides of the aisle.

As for the vitriol for Bush: some of that was inevitable, some of that was a natural progression of how politics works now, and some of that was self inflicted.

The inevitiable part arises from two close elections, in which it's safe to say roughly half the nation voted against him twice. He skewed to hard right after being elected, while virtually ignoring the crucial issues of the evangelical voters that got him into office. He was not a gifted speaker or even a particularly cunning politician, and so failed to win over the voters in a way that Nixon, Reagan, or Clinton did.

The self inflicted part of it arose from his arrogance and his seeming inabilty to listen to anybody not already in his inner circle. When people think you're a Frat Boy that got elected due to connection, you should probably work hard to eliminate that perception. He never changed his persona, and he never caved on the token issue to appeal to moderates (Clinton had welfare reform, Reagan had the ADA, Nixon had the EPA).

Based on who he was and how he wanted to spend his presidency there's little change he'd be as loved as clinton or reagan, but there are ways he could have avoided the worst of the vitriol.

PanamaG wrote:Wow you just devalued all of your arguments so far, good job. Maybe 1 person out of the 5 you talk to can be considered "all those folk" in your little world. Get the hell out of here. Every republican I listen to and watch still respects the president they just don't like what he does and is inevitably going to do.

Grignard already called me on this and I admitted then that I chose my words poorly and used a generalisation that wasn’t appropriate. You’ve now gone on to ignore this to score a cheap point. Good form.

And don't even get me started on the whiny pimple faced queerbucks drinking libs who cried corcodile tears when bush was in office for 8 years.

THEY BOO'D A PRESIDENT! They boo'd Bush as he came up the steps of the inauguration, and youre telling me people have no respect? That moment made me ashamed to even be American that these yuppy ass little girls are even getting what they think they want.

I abused Bush a lot. I think he was a very bad president. I think the idea that a position of great power demands some kind of restraint in criticism is a very dangerous idea. The more powerful a position is, the more criticism it should attract. If people think Obama is doing badly, they should say ‘Obama is doing badly’. If they think he sucks they should say he sucks.

My problem was always with the folk that spent eight years attacking Clinton on every possible point, no matter how petty, but then discovered respect for the office when their guy was in the chair. Now they’re gearing up again and quickly abandoning that ‘respect the office’ thing.

You are that kind of hypocrite. You’re complaining about booing a guy at his inauguration, but your sig right now claims Obama is a village idiot, and you deny he’s your president. You are an absurdity, you can’t even keep your story straight from your post to your sig.]

Ensis Ferrae wrote:actually... doing abit of reading into that post... its "pimplefaced queerbacks drinkers"

im assuming you can figure out the pimple faced bit there... and i think id be spot on if i went out on a limb and said that "queerbacks" in proper english terms.. is "Starbucks" the Tyranid-esque coffee chain.

Pimple faced… I’m guessing because he assumed the people who didn’t like Bush were young. One bad thing about being young is pimples.

Queerbucks… there’s a thing about Starbucks being for sophisticated urbanites, while rural folk prefer Dunkin’ Donuts. One of the more fun measures of whether a state will lean GOP or DNC is the Starbucks to Dunkin’ Donuts ratio. Queer, I’m guessing because PanamaG is somewhere between 12 and 15 years old, and going through that stage where everything bad gets called gay. I think it has something to do with virginal insecurity, because it’s funny how quickly it stops after people start having sex.