the right to regulate emissions. So what ever happened to state's rights? Might I add this is after the EPA was forced by the Supreme Court earlier this year to regulate carbon as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (after being sued by most, if not all the same states).

Quote :

"Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson yesterday denied California's petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs. The decision set in motion a legal battle that EPA's lawyers expect to lose and demonstrated the Bush administration's determination to oppose any mandatory measures specifically targeted at curbing global warming pollution. A total of 18 states, representing 45 percent of the nation's auto market, have either adopted or pledged to implement California's proposed tailpipe emissions rules, which seek to cut vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121902012.html

12/20/2007 12:06:39 AM

The Environmental Puppet Agency has been nothing but a fraud since Bush & Co. took over. The evidence of that can be seen on their site as they were the only ones (aside from Bush lackys) to try and make W.'s Clear Skies Act sound positive.

12/20/2007 12:09:43 AM

it is my eleventeenth amendment right to shit in your nostrils

fuck your cancer bitch

12/20/2007 12:11:51 AM

I was talking about the environment with this evangelical slut

and she was like, "It doesn't matter if animals go extinct, duh. It's not this life that's important. It's all a part of god's plan. blah blah blah my parents and church taught me this blah blah durrrr."

I don't even think bush has the capacity to understand the environment; it's not "on his radar"

I truly believe that he's on board with the "god wouldn't let us harm his creation in a way he didn't want...durrr"

As long as he can still go outside to hunt birds raised in captivity, he'll not have any problem with the environment

12/20/2007 8:35:51 AM

So your upset that the new CAFE standards have been raised the biggest increase in history to 35 mpg, which will cost the automakers BILLIONS to meet, yet they are giving them a break in trying to give them one national standard in emissions? Having multiple regulations would set back R&D spending for years, as automakers would be chasing their own tails trying to comply with multiple regulations. With no separate standard for green states like California, automakers can now build one car for all 50 states, which will save billions every year.

12/20/2007 9:45:19 AM

Quote :

"would be chasing their own tails trying to comply with multiple regulations. "

not really, just strive to meet the most stringent standards and you're ok.

12/20/2007 10:12:27 AM

Quote :

"The decision set in motion a legal battle that EPA's lawyers expect to lose and demonstrated the Bush administration's determination to oppose any mandatory measures specifically targeted at curbing global warming pollution."

funny coming from an administration who so often criticizes the congress for playing political games by passing legislation they know won't be signed.

12/20/2007 10:17:34 AM

Quote :

"So what ever happened to state's rights?"

There was this damned thing called "The Civil War." After that, States' Rights were fucked. Probably the worst thing that ever happened to this nation.

12/22/2007 11:14:40 PM

12/22/2007 11:46:16 PM

if only that were what the Civil War was really about, you might have a point. Slavery was merely the match that ignited the powder keg of States' Rights, leading to the Civil War. The main thrust of Reconstruction (you know, the aftermath of the war) was the northern states forcing the southern states to agree with them that the federal government could tell states to do whatever the hell it wanted

12/22/2007 11:55:31 PM

You're absolutely correct. And it became apparent that the states couldn't be trusted to handle anything more than the governmental equivalent of janitorial duties without horrific abuses like slavery. Hence our current system, and no more states rights.

Besides, all the states are basically the same now anyway. Burger joint, burger joint, factory, field, burger joint, burger joint.

[Edited on December 23, 2007 at 12:10 AM. Reason : California being the exception, of course.]

12/23/2007 12:07:50 AM

^^ you are right this is why i support strongly Ron Paul

USA #1

12/23/2007 12:14:57 AM

Quote :

"And it became apparent that the states couldn't be trusted to handle anything more than the governmental equivalent of janitorial duties without horrific abuses like slavery."

If only slavery didn't exist before the creation of the country, you might have a point. And the irony is that things got far worse for blacks in the South when the federal gov't stepped in in Reconstruction than between the interim of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Sounds to me like the fed made things incredibly worse, and the ramifications of that lasted for more than a hundred years. And, somehow, you think this is preferable... All of this despite the fact that slavery was not caused by States' Rights. All of this despite the fact that slavery was about to die out anyway due to industrialization. Yes. It was necessary to assrape the Constitution in order to destroy an institution that was dying out anyway.

12/23/2007 12:16:13 AM

This country would be 10x better off if states were allowed to exclusively take care of a lot of programs that the federal gov't sticks their ass then. Maybe then I wouldn't be paying for a $20 million bridge into nowhere in Alaska.

12/23/2007 12:20:06 AM

Yeah, some bad shit went down.

I will say this. Now that all those issues have been worked out(still by the feds, albeit 100 years later) and everyone's on a relatively level playing field in this country, I think local governments should play a more prominent role. Hell, running for state office today you'd probably have more constituents than if you were running for fed office 100 years ago.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with a state regulating pollution in their borders. Or marriage. Or any of these other relatively petty issues. We're all free to move from state to state, and I like the idea of being able to move to a place where prostitution is legal. Or away from one.

12/23/2007 12:24:26 AM

This country would be 100x better if we just followed the damned Constitution and repealed the 16th and 14th Amendments.

Quote :

"I will say this. Now that all those issues have been worked out(still by the feds, albeit 100 years later)"

You neglect to admit that those problems were CAUSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, my friend.

[Edited on December 23, 2007 at 12:28 AM. Reason : ]

12/23/2007 12:26:57 AM

could you explain the part about the 14 amendment. I agree about the citizenship party. With modern transportation someone should not be an american citizen just by being born on american soil.

Technically AJ (Iran president) could have come for his state visit with the MRS. and the next thing you know AJ's kid is an American Citizen

12/23/2007 12:40:06 AM

I object to the 14th Amendment because it puts federal restrictions on the States based on restrictions that were explicitly meant to be on ONLY the federal government. Basically, the 9th and 10th Amendments say "hey, this shit applies ONLY to the Fed unless otherwise noted. Everything else belongs to the States to decide." The 14th comes along and says "fuck the 9th and 10th Amendments" without explicitly repealing them.

12/23/2007 1:03:00 AM