Gee, I couldn't possibly imagine.

Because it causes chaos when moving from state to state, and it will add to the cost of all cars sold in the U.S.

bearsfolks: Because it causes chaos when moving from state to state...

It does? Where has this problem presented itself?

...and it will add to the cost of all cars sold in the U.S.

Really? How much more?

bearsfolks:

Because it causes chaos

Chaos is the origin for the word gas.

bearsfolks: Because it causes chaos when moving from state to state, and it will add to the cost of all cars sold in the U.S.

Quoth the same person that consistently berates the idea of federally mandated single-payer health care.

Taken at your word, the state has the power to create mandates that affect people, but not those affecting corporations.

Clue: If you go back and read the 14th Amendment, you'll notice that a corporate person has the same rights as a living, breathing individual.

Not more.

Whaa! But we only mean states rights in things like abortion and keeping gays from marrying! WHAA!!!!!!

Why bother having an EPA? What are they protecting?

"The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases or is it more effective to have a national strategy?" Bush said at a news conference Thursday.

An actual conservative would have allowed individual states to have made the decision for themselves rather than imposing a federal mandate from on high.

But then, we've been drifting towards a more centralized government now for the past 40 years. With the concentration of power and authority in the judical and executive branches at the federal level, it remains to be seen which branch will eventually come out on top.

You know who else was interested in states rights?

States rights are only used when you need to bludgeon some uppity negros. Otherwise its big federal government all the way.

Zarkin Frood: You know who else was interested in states rights?

John C. Calhoun?

Yesdog: Whaa! But we only mean states rights in things like abortion and keeping gays from marrying! WHAA!!!!!!

No shiat. Oregon voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly voted again and again in favor of legalized euthanasia and decriminalized marijuana.

This "states rights" administration won't keep their farking nose out of it.

bearsfolks: Because it causes chaos when moving from state to state,

Like state inspection laws?


and it will add to the cost of all cars sold in the U.S.

bull.

flaEsq: Why bother having an EPA? What are they protecting?

the letter "E"?

Meet Us at the Stick: Zarkin Frood: You know who else was interested in states rights?

John C. Calhoun?

Ding ding ding!

Other acceptable answers: Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, John Randolph, and Joseph "Fightin' Joe" Hooker.

Large barrels of cash trump ideology. I guess the national GOP hasn't told Arnie this yet.

bearsfolks: Because it causes chaos when moving from state to state, and it will add to the cost of all cars sold in the U.S.

Well California has had higher standards for emissions then the rest of the country for years. Being that we are the largest market in the country, the car manufactures have been making cars in accordance to those standards with out any significant issues. There are steps you can take to import a non-California compliance car. Its actually not really that big a hassle(actually have done it myself). IOW you don't know what you are talking about. If car companies want to sell in California or any of the other markets where these standards are being adopted, they can just follow our standards. If not they can sell them in any of the states that don't have those standards. Its really not that complicated.

I might be able to understand if it were something like North Dakota, where the market is relatively small, but its not, its more then 10%(50% when you factor in the other 16 states that are in the processes or have already adopted the same measures) of the countries population. If car companies don't want a piece of that market, they don't have to go for it.

Ann Coulter: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.
Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn: Oh, OK.
Coulter: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.
Fenn: This is a great idea.
Coulter: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."
Fenn: Terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources...
Coulter: Yes! Yes.
Fenn: ... as fast as we possibly can.
Coulter: As opposed to living like the Indians.

/Don't want to live like the Indians, do you patriot?

Because it is all part of Government's new mission: To protect profit margins from the evils of Competition and Regulation.

The header says it all.

Suck it, conservatards.

Zarkin Frood: Meet Us at the Stick: Zarkin Frood: You know who else was interested in states rights?

John C. Calhoun?

Ding ding ding!
i190.photobucket.com
Other acceptable answers: Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, John Randolph, and Joseph "Fightin' Joe" Hooker.

Ummmm....maybe YOU win the prize for that one.

Mr. FJ Hooker was a Massachusetts native and a Union General, dude.

Whoops! That's what I get for meditating so hard on "Robert E. Lee" that my fingers squirt out "Joseph Hooker". I am one ashamed dudette.

California is a great example of why States should be able to make stricter rules than the Fed. They have a huge mountain range to the East and the ocean to the West. Prevailing winds are from the West, so any pollution they create cannot go anywhere. This country is too big and diverse to set one standard which appeases all geographic situations.

States rights are all good and dandy but when one state starts affecting commerce of other states and affecting changes in a common product then a federal standard for quality on the good is needed. Commerce clause anyone.

All for states rights for most things but I fail to see how a state has the power to affect the commerce of other states.

flaEsq: Why bother having an EPA? What are they protecting?

George Bush's ass.

And the Oil industry.

youl100: Ann Coulter: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.
Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn: Oh, OK.
Coulter: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.
Fenn: This is a great idea.
Coulter: God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."
Fenn: Terrific. We're Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth's resources...
Coulter: Yes! Yes.
Fenn: ... as fast as we possibly can.
Coulter: As opposed to living like the Indians.

/Don't want to live like the Indians, do you patriot?

Peter Fenn should have studied his Bible. The perfect response to that line of crap from Coulter is:
Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Anytime someone quotes the Bible as evidence, just quote is back or tell them to provide more evidence besides one poorly translated book.

Hmmm... Should I side with the bullies in Washington or the meddlers in Sacramento.

I Said: replenish the earth,

Isn't he talking about populating it here?

This About That: Hmmm... Should I side with the bullies in Washington or the meddlers in Sacramento.

Sacramento is a city of voters and taxpayers who put into the system what they get out. Washington (the one you meant) is corporate whores with almost zero accountability.

In almost every case, the city is correct.

Skleenar: Isn't he talking about populating it here?

By "replenish" I take it to mean "put back what you take out". As in "it's yours to use, but don't break it".

I mean, why tell Adam and Eve to "replenish" if you mean "populate". What does populating the earth with humans "replenish" if you are the first humans?

I Said: corporate whores

I will give you the point that Sacramento is (maybe) less corrupt than Washington, but don't turn your back on 'em.

Here's a radical thought. Maybe cutting emissions will result in higher fuel efficiency. That in turn, will lead to less fuel consumption, and less oil being imported from countries like... Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Where exactly does Osama Bin Laden and Hugo Chavez get their money? Oh, that's right. From us. Cutting emissions will help the war on terror more than the troop surge...

I Said: I mean, why tell Adam and Eve to "replenish" if you mean "populate". What does populating the earth with humans "replenish" if you are the first humans?

Who did their children marry?

Genesis seems to hint that there were other humans around.

One thing that bothers me about this (and there's probably 75 others), is that environmental policy seems to be decided on "which lawsuit are we going to win?" instead of what makes sense for the environment.

Johnson's decision overruled a consensus among EPA's legal and technical staff that denying the waiver was unlikely to stand up in court, according to government officials familiar with the decision. Johnson's advisers told him that granting the request would put the agency in a much more defensible legal position should automakers take the EPA to court.

Skleenar: Who did their children marry?

Genesis seems to hint that there were other humans around.

It does. It never goes into detail though as to who they are and where they're from (IIRC). When this was asked in my catholic H.S. the answer was anything from others created after Adam and Eve, to Adam and Eve's other kids, to "We just don't know".

My point was that you can debate the book with the book itself. That if someone cites the Bible as their source for an opinion, you can cite the Bible and find a counter point.

I'm pretty sure if I did a little digging I could find other passages to refute Coulters claim. But even with the one I mentioned, Genesis may allude to other people, but it never mentions a population shortage. What it does mention are Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, others at the time of Cain and Abel, and the fact the the earth was theirs to "subdue" and "replenish". I've always felt that was a "great power = great responsibility" thing.

I Said: I've always felt that was a "great power = great responsibility" thing.

As do quite a few evangelicals--who buck the GOP denial of AGW.

Skleenar: As do quite a few evangelicals--who buck the GOP denial of AGW.

I have no issue with evangelicals, or religious people in general. I just don't like using a religious text (that one in particular, which has been translated, retranslated, and edited for centuries) to prove a point in the real world. Use it for morality, fine. Use it to teach life-lessons, that's great. But don't tell me your environmental/economic/foreign relations policy in 2007 is "x" because the Bible claims it should be.

miseducated: bearsfolks: Because it causes chaos when moving from state to state, and it will add to the cost of all cars sold in the U.S.

Quoth the same person that consistently berates the idea of federally mandated single-payer health care.

Taken at your word, the state has the power to create mandates that affect people, but not those affecting corporations.

Clue: If you go back and read the 14th Amendment, you'll notice that a corporate person has the same rights as a living, breathing individual.

Not more.

And this is an absolute abberation.

How can a legal entity have the same rights as a person when said entity cannot be physically incarcerated?

States rights are all good and dandy but when one state starts affecting commerce of other states and affecting changes in a common product then a federal standard for quality on the good is needed. Commerce clause anyone.

Your notion of what the "commerce clause" entails is lacking. By your definition, most everything is covered under the "commerce clause." It's the same rationale that liberals use to eliminate the rights of the state.

You're basically pulling the whole "I'm all for states rights, when the state chooses to exercise them in a way that I agree with politically" Republican tactic.

It's unbecoming. You either support states' rights or you don't.

Elastic Clause FTW!

The Homer Tax: States rights are all good and dandy but when one state starts affecting commerce of other states and affecting changes in a common product then a federal standard for quality on the good is needed. Commerce clause anyone.

Your notion of what the "commerce clause" entails is lacking. By your definition, most everything is covered under the "commerce clause." It's the same rationale that liberals use to eliminate the rights of the state.

You're basically pulling the whole "I'm all for states rights, when the state chooses to exercise them in a way that I agree with politically" Republican tactic.

It's unbecoming. You either support states' rights or you don't.

I humbly disagree. We are talking about a consumer good here. We are not talking about feed grown for self use. We are not talking about canabis grown for self use/medication. We are not talking about states setting standards for products manufactured inside the state. We are talking about a state setting a standard for other states, they are using the size of their market to affect the commerce in other states and products created in other states. I believe this is one of the reasons the CC was created, to keep larger states from running roughshod over the smaller states economically. Using the CC to restict peoples actions is wrong but this I see no wrong in it. But then again this is an act by the EPA and not the congress, so the use of the CC is not applicable.

I guess we shall have to wait for the EPA's reasoning for the denial for the waver to find out. Then the subsequent legal battles.

I humbly disagree. We are talking about a consumer good here. We are not talking about feed grown for self use. We are not talking about canabis grown for self use/medication. We are not talking about states setting standards for products manufactured inside the state. We are talking about a state setting a standard for other states, they are using the size of their market to affect the commerce in other states and products created in other states. I believe this is one of the reasons the CC was created, to keep larger states from running roughshod over the smaller states economically. Using the CC to restict peoples actions is wrong but this I see no wrong in it. But then again this is an act by the EPA and not the congress, so the use of the CC is not applicable.

So, what you're saying is that under the Commerce Clause, the Fed would have the right to enact Federal Minimum MPG Standards?

Be careful what you wish for...

I'm shocked nobody has brought up seat belts yet.

The States have always acted as pressure valves when the Federal Government gets too stupid for too long. California, in particular, has a thing for progressive environmentalism and consumer safety. They will prove correct in the long run. What's depressing to me about this is that the Republicans should get slammed over this from both environmental safety and energy security camps, but they probably won't.

The Homer Tax:

So, what you're saying is that under the Commerce Clause, the Fed would have the right to enact Federal Minimum MPG Standards?

Be careful what you wish for...

Well they do that already now with CAFE standards? I am not sure they ever had to reason whether it fell under the CC or by a blanket power granted to the EPA.

I personally am a bit jaded by this. States should be able to regulate industry and consumer goods (within reason) but I get a little testy when a large state starts using their marketshare to dictate to the rest of the country.

a large state starts using their marketshare to dictate to the rest of the country.

That's the nature of highly capitalized commerce. If Mauritania promulgates a standard tomorrow requiring five tires on every car, the result will be that nobody sells cars in Mauritania anymore. It isn't worth it to retool a factory to sell fifty cars.

Conversely, if Wal-Mart says they want RFID tags on every item they sell by 2010, that RFID will em effing be there by 2010. The profit to be had from their sheer volume is worth the overhead of their specific demands.

You want our money, you sell what we want to buy. That's capitalism. In this case, the Government is handling the collective bargaining agreement because it also happens to be a public health issue. You'll notice that Californians are loving the Governator for doing this. They would do it themselves with a private organization if they had to.

Your arguments have won me over. Now is there any reason not to have railroads controlled by each state? Or commercial big rigs?

Shvetz: Here's a radical thought. Maybe cutting emissions will result in higher fuel efficiency.

Reality disagrees. The "California blend" of gas has lower emissions per gallon...but is about 30% less efficient* and 20% higher than most gas in other states*. And when you consider that you have to burn roughly 50% more of it to go the same distance, I really question if it's cutting emissions by any real amount.

*All figures based on personal experience while driving through California this year. YMMV, literally.

Strict-constructionist. Adj. 1.One who advocates a strict construction of a law or the Constitution. 2. Out of office.

States Rights. Sub. 1. A policy of, or belief in, a maximum of power and freedom for states versus the federal government. 2. Out of office.

bearsfolks: Because it causes chaos when moving from state to state, and it will add to the cost of all cars sold in the U.S.



Yes, CHAOS I tells you. The American people are just children, too stupid to be able to manage it. We'll then end up with people marrying their pet hamsters. The laws of gravity will give way and the world will turn upside down.

This is MADNESS. Dogs and cats, living together, MASS HYSTERIA!



Keep drinking the kool aide.