Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-01-2011, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Fairfax County, VA
3,718 posts, read 5,696,809 times
Reputation: 1480

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Rising fuel prices have the effect of consumers calling for more economical vehicles without any wrongheaded dictation from the idiots in d.c.
If the consumer wants it, it will be made.
So when are you going to post something constructive?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2011, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
9,394 posts, read 15,692,607 times
Reputation: 6262
This stuff is completely ridiculous IMO. I'm all for fuel efficient cars but a government gun-to-the-head forcing car makers to do that is messed up.

Here's hoping BMW can make their M5 hit 50MPG... it sure would suck to not be able to drive one because of The Great Divider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 09:42 AM
 
Location: west mich
5,739 posts, read 6,934,715 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Once again, like his "spending cuts" that don't take place until after he is out of office, he makes plans to destroy the economy over the next 20 years. Nothing like passing standards that don't take effect till he is out of office.
Gee, a 20-year plan to destroy the country...
I can't believe somebody on conservative radio actually said something like this. It's dumb even for them (not the listeners of course - guess they know that). They must be getting desperate.
Can we expect you to post more gems like this, so that we know what Fox is saying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 10:12 AM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,301,747 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Once again, like his "spending cuts" that don't take place until after he is out of office, he makes plans to destroy the economy over the next 20 years. Nothing like passing standards that don't take effect till he is out of office.
Somehow all the preceding fuel economy standards never destroyed the country. You'd thnk that multi-billion dollar auto companies with vast technical resrouces that actually AGREED to these standards should be able to MEET THEM fifteen years from now.

What part of the fact that the auto makers AGREED to these stadards don't you understand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 10:14 AM
 
45,226 posts, read 26,443,162 times
Reputation: 24980
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
Somehow all the preceding fuel economy standards never destroyed the country. You'd thnk that multi-billion dollar auto companies with vast technical resrouces that actually AGREED to these standards should be able to MEET THEM fifteen years from now.

What part of the fact that the auto makers AGREED to these stadards don't you understand?
As if they have a choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 10:14 AM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,301,747 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
You cannot compensate for physics.

A heavier vehicle hitting a lighter vehicle will always win, regardless of safety equipment.

Traffic fatalities rise in proportion to fuel standards every time.

obama wants to kill Americans!
It never ceases to amaze me the heights of ABSURDITY a Conservative will reach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 10:17 AM
 
45,226 posts, read 26,443,162 times
Reputation: 24980
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
It never ceases to amaze me the heights of ABSURDITY a Conservative will reach.
Can you refute the claim with more than head slapping?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,869 posts, read 26,508,031 times
Reputation: 25771
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
Somehow all the preceding fuel economy standards never destroyed the country. You'd thnk that multi-billion dollar auto companies with vast technical resrouces that actually AGREED to these standards should be able to MEET THEM fifteen years from now.

What part of the fact that the auto makers AGREED to these stadards don't you understand?
Hello, do you not remember the vehicles of the 70s and early 80s? Congress, NHTSA and the EPA enacted emmissions, fuel economy and safety standards that couldn't reasonably be met with available technology. We have better vehicles than ever now, but it took 30 years for the technology to catch up with the arbitrary government demands. With modern fuel injection and computer controls, those standards are met. With the band-aids applied back in the 70s and 80s, cars met emmissions, with medicore gains in mileage and terrible performance. Remember 305 and 350 V-8s getting 130-140 HP? Remember the maintenance nightmares they were? Remember when the US auto industry was the dominant force in US industry? GM alone used to have something like 70% of the market...and now they have gone through bankruptcy. Not that all of GMs issues were due to the government.

The automakers do have significant resources, but they are not what they used to be. Margins have been cut to remain competative, leaving less money for R&D than was the case 40 years ago. Even back then, the auto industries resources are not what many would believe. They aren't the government, they don't just print money when they need to do something. They have to balance profits with investments.

Hopefully Obama and his EPA don't get into the act and further restrict auto emissions. Car emissions have been reduced by ~98%. How much further do we have to go, and at what cost? We're long past the point of diminishing returns for every dollar spent.

Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 08-01-2011 at 10:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 10:40 AM
 
Location: west mich
5,739 posts, read 6,934,715 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Can you refute the claim with more than head slapping?
F.D., I know you're not serious, but I'll make a note anyway.
Don't demand from others what you yourself don't provide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2011, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,869 posts, read 26,508,031 times
Reputation: 25771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Can you refute the claim with more than head slapping?
Quote:
Originally Posted by detwahDJ View Post
F.D., I know you're not serious, but I'll make a note anyway.
Don't demand from others what you yourself don't provide.

I guess that's a no...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:15 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top