Comments on: Clinton proposes 55 mpg standard by 2030

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:06:33 +0000

http://www.mendosa.com/politics.html

By: GTI4Life

GTI4Life — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:03:40 +0000

Amazing how this issue can divide people politically. I was all on board of this saving the earth train until they decided carbon dioxide was “pollution”.

By: Piablo

Piablo — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:44:58 +0000

Nah, we weren’t offended as much as we were surprised to see such an ignorant tard so passionately proclaiming blatant inaccuracies. As the saying goes…”If people suspect you’re an idiot, it’s best to keep your mouth shut, than open it and confirm their suspicions.”

By: mujician

mujician — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:25:21 +0000

WOW, I really offended all of you “REPUBLICAN” **** heads. I for one am not either a tree hugger nor an ass sniffer. As far as the comment twards you CTS, I didn’t know I was directing it right at you. On the other hand I do love to offend all of you wenever I get the chance. O’**** I furgot my grammar again, O what to I do. Can one of you smart gents help me. I’m drownding in a all of this garbage.

By: cardesigner5

cardesigner5 — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:37:16 +0000

CTS driver im not british by the way, i jus live there

By: Get Real

Get Real — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:34:31 +0000

How did we get to Chelsea ???

With a disfunctional family like her’s she is going to need a lot of counseling.

By: cardesigner5

cardesigner5 — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:31:58 +0000

oohhh CTS DRIVER you’re a nasty piece of work

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:48:41 +0000

‘jjt’, no, if you don’t have majority votes, there’s nothing one can do. And I shouldn’t have had to move to avoid it. Thankfully, the laws have changed and all is well. In this case, legislation rules. Those chumps and others like you who accept laissez-faire will come to get it up the rear with CAFE, non-smoking, and the myriad other issues that need to be addressed where freedom-loving jackasses learn to adapt to a higher standard.

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:27:36 +0000

socializm

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:30:53 +0000

One other thing … hard to believe but Chelsea is halfway bangable:

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/the_day_after_tomorrow/chelsea_clinton/daypres.jpg

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:28:59 +0000

hmmm – I tested the “taboo” word first and then the amended form above afterwards. JJT, now we have a functional alternative.

By: RicardoHead

RicardoHead — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 01:27:53 +0000

soshialism

By: gbb

gbb — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:36:33 +0000

I propose prison for the entire Clinton family.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:29:42 +0000

Well, your condo rulers should have addressed the smoking issue. I think government should regulate things people need, but for thing people want, laissez-faire!

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:39:43 +0000

‘CTS’, lovin’ it.

‘jjt’, I am a capitalist with a soft heart. ‘Blakkar’ is only providing a different perspective that most of you here don’t understand. I want CAFE so that I don’t live under a toxic stew of smog. And I don’t want to depend on foreigners and make them rich by accepting the status quo. It is your freedom-loving ignorance that has allowed us to stagnate for the last 17 years with no real progress. But it’s that same freedom-loving ignorance that’s the cause of many other issues that NEED to be legislated to correct. I shouldn’t have had to inhale second-hand smoke in hallways, stairwells and elevators of condos because the freedom-loving jackasses were allowed to do as they wished.

Point being, having him state what he has proves that until the ignorant are directed by some external force, nothing will change for the better.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:03:14 +0000

CTS: yes, even hillary.
OK, maybe not kennedy, but perhaps a disclaimer is in order. The only person with less chance of getting elected that a democrat from Massachusetts is a democrat from San Francisco.

People hate america, but as my viet-vet uncle told me when I was 10 or so, there’s no place better.

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:58:51 +0000

WHY DONT YOU GO **** YOUR PIG QUEEN YOU MUSTARD TOOTHED WANKER, PILES OF **** LIKE YOU NEED TO SHUT THE **** UP ABOUT KILLING OUR PRESIDENT, BOZO OR NOT IT IS NOT UP TO A SCUMMY PIG****ER LIKE YOU TO PASS THAT KIND OF JUDGEMENT. YOU ****ING ASSCRAMMERS ON THAT SIDE OF THE POND HAVE NO BUSINESS TALKING ABOUT OUR PREZ BEING A DICTATOR, WE STILL HAVE MORE FREEDOMS THAN YOU DO.
JACK….EVEN HILLARY? EVEN KERRY? HOW ABOUT KENNEDY?

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:46:23 +0000

I’ve discovered that if you try to type a word that starts with the first three letters of what americans call football, and ends with “ism,” it won’t post.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 22:45:17 +0000

D cd5: anybody (including Jeb) would be better than W.
Impulsive: blakkar (If I may presume to speak for him) is not advocating so

cial

ism. He’s saying people should get smart and tell automakers that what they’re producing now is unacceptable.

By: cardesigner5

cardesigner5 — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:58:43 +0000

if u want to stereotype, why don’t u take you’re republican ass and go **** you’re cousin hillbilly’s

By: Piablo

Piablo — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:55:22 +0000

Blakkar – Why do you think the current lineup of vehicles do not offer what you are asking for? Do you really think people are settling on what is out there or are they happy with what they are getting? You somewhat eluded to the reason cars have the fuel economy they have but I would argue a far different conclusion. Fuel economy is not a priority for most people. Performance, size, public perception are all higher priorities than fuel economy. Fuel economy is also the antithesis of performance and size. When automakers find that their performance models sell better than the lower models which also tend to have better fuel economy, where do you think they are going to spend the R&D dollars?. The existance of this web site is proof enough! We idolize the BMWs, Porsches, Ferraris.
I don’t blame the automakers one bit for the current state. GM could take a moral or ethical stance, however people view this, and only sell fuel efficient vehicles. What’s going to happen is the customer will walk across the street and buy the performance model from the competitor. There are already fuel efficient vehicles out there. And unless it’s a Prius, they aren’t exactly selling like hot cakes. We have this idea that engineers can create just about anything… a car that seats 6, goes 0-60 in 4 seconds, and gets a fuel mileage rating of 50mpg. I have no doubt that it’s possible to create such a vehicle, but engineers also have to operate in a parameter I like to call reality. Who could afford such a vehicle? or would want to afford it? Given today’s current legislation on vehicle design and safety standards, along with environmental mandates such as emmisions, it would be too expensive and nobody would buy it. How many Teslas do you really think are going to sell?
Buying fuel efficient vehicles is really a paradox considering our society’s practices. We build McMansions. We have swimming pools in the back yard. We dine out at restaurants with enormous buffets. We have an entire city, Las Vegas, whose sole existance is for pleasure and indulgence. To single out cars and say we need to demand 55+mpg is a bit hypocritical in spite of everything else. There are many other areas to start being eco-conscious that would have a much higher impact. I would suggest car pooling is a much easier change in lifestyle than down grading to an econo-box. Not only that, but if four people car pool to work, they’ve just increased their gas mileage 4 fold. And hey, it doesn’t cost a dime! But the real problem here, is lifestyle change. And no new technology car is going to change it.
Instead of demanding immediate change and revolution in an industry, we should start looking at the little things that we can actually make a difference with. Demanding the auto industry to make a vehicle that gets 50mpg still perpetuates the idea that everyone deserves their own personal mode of transport and further pushes the disposable attitude. Demanding an industry change around indulgent lifestyles is exactly the attitude that promotes waste.

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:29:41 +0000

^WOW thats just brutally ignorant cardesigner5, you are why i hate dems with stupid talk like that, i thought you crazy hippie pot smokers were supposed to hold hands and not be violent, thank god for the christian right.

By: cardesigner5

cardesigner5 — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:18:35 +0000

oooohhhh aaahhhhh . the internet is all about free speech, unless he is a dictator over that aswell

By: Get Real

Get Real — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:04:26 +0000

Dear cardesigner5….

The Secret Service will visit you soon.

POTUS is still POTUS and words like “shooting” get people in trouble.

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:50:44 +0000

‘Blakkar’, in the sea of ignorance, stupidity and selfishness, you have shone a light of REALITY. Good for you.

By: cardesigner5

cardesigner5 — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:49:41 +0000

I do hope Hilary gets the next presidency and kick george bush out the front door ,( i’d take the pleasure of shooting him myself). However this legisation is so stupid. why should she care about 2050 she will be in her grave, long time.

By: Blakkarr

Blakkarr — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:19:09 +0000

Raising the CAFE that far so far in the future, is pointless. Mindless grandstanding to get points on a plan that none of us will ever care happens.

I’m not voting for Hillary anyway. Frankly she rubs me the wrong way. Just hearing her voice pisses me off.

As far as CAFE goes. it should be 55MPG by 2020. We customers should be demanding far better and not settling until we have at least 100 mpg from cars and trucks alike. Really turn the screws ourselves. the Gas-guzzler tax is a sham. Until you slam trucks and SUVs with hefty GGT, it means nothing. to date only cars that the extremely wealthy can afford are effected and they don’t blink much at gas prices. Heck the H2, which gets only marginally better f-econ than a Lamborghini speed boat at full throttle, has no GGT stamped to it at all.

Frankly, We should be demanding better. Every other year we hear about new cars in “testing” that will get 40, 50, 100 MPG or more and all we get to buy are the same old cars with a “10%” improvement in F/econ. BULL$#it !!!

We should be driving full-sized trucks that get 30MPG, Family sedans that get 60MPG. The CORVETTE should be getting around 40-50MPG. We spend more time worrying if the car is compatible with our iPods than our pocket books. Stop feeling helpless and tell them WE don’t want 35mpg fleet economy. We want 35 fleet minimum… nothing gets less than 35mpg. We may not get it next model, but if we lean on them, demand it and threaten to go elsewhere or even sue (This would be a good lawsuit… for once), it WILL happen much faster than if the government pretends to do something about it.

They’re are already talking about $4.00/gal gas by Summer. It could feel like $2.00 if real effort is put into improved F/econ instead of these “feel good” proposals.

The same model the DoD employs to get their next fighter plane, Bomber, APC, Assault rifle, and so on could be used here. Guaranteed incentives to the winning design for more efficient engines, vehicles, and the like to seriously spur forward development and deployment of the desired technology. Even some garage inventor could be the next Henry Ford, the incentives and rewards would be so huge. Think the x-prize for cars.

Ugh! Stupid Hillary.

By: frankhoffy

frankhoffy — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:08:01 +0000

Whoever votes for this idiot is, by association, an idiot

By: Impulsive

Impulsive — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:13:57 +0000

If your government doesn’t act to force fuel efficiency by the automakers, what will most of you be driving when gas prices are $6/gallon? And how quick and substantive would changes be when automakers then need to catch up?

Had incremental increases in CAFE standards been implemented since 1990, what would we find on the road today? It’s funny to see the last 17 years display considerable increases in horsepower but less focus on a similar increase in fuel efficiency. At some point, acceleration, for the majority, is more than sufficient.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:17:25 +0000

seas

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:17:09 +0000

Glenn beck says the Acadia is the best car ever.

Jordan: I live in southern california, and if the sees rise enough, my exurb will be beachside. Who needs Oceanside and Escondido, anyway?

By: Jordan

Jordan — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:10:00 +0000

i like how this turned from “discussion” of the proposed standards to ad hominem attacks on hilary that have no basis in reality. whether or not global climate change (not warming, because it’s not getting warmer everywhere) is caused by humans or caused by nature, you cannot deny that it is happening, and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising. A lot of this is due to human factories and human agriculture, like cattle farming, which releases enormous amounts of methane into the atmosphere, amplifying the greenhouse effect. Regardless of whether it’s natural or not, you are NOT going to like it when sea levels rise forty to fifty feet after the northern polar ice cap melts. bangkok and other coastal cities will be swallowed by the ocean. but you probably don’t care, because you don’t live in bangkok. it’s not your problem.

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:00:12 +0000

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:55:59 +0000

back in 98 i wouldnt mind gettein caught while she gave me a lewinski, just for tyhe sake of her getting caught with boner breath.

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:54:37 +0000

thats acutally funny there swervy, i take back the moron comment obviously you are not a moron, its just people already forgot she is also to blame in this war for enabling it.
if my buddy murders somebody and i know about it i am guilty, same for her, even worse she enabled it, while her husband did nothing 8 years earlier.