What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
53 Comments
- lohphat, on 12/20/2007, -1/+26The party of "State's Rights" strikes again.
- DarKnyht, on 12/20/2007, -0/+19Guess the Federal government wants to ensure that the people don't get to govern and decide for themselves. The EPA should have no power to rule if any state decides to uphold a stronger standard than them.
But them I am one of those that believes that a Federal EPA shouldn't exist in the first place. Local governments and state governments should decide what is best for themselves. Let's do something radical and put the power of the government back into the hands of the people. - inactive, on 12/20/2007, -0/+17These neo-cons aren't really Republicans. It makes me sad to see how far the party has strayed from its original ideals.
- Berkana, on 12/20/2007, -2/+13"These same environmentalists"? Not so. Citing that we knew less and had different conclusions 30 years ago doesn't do a thing to refute the current conclusions.
- 3drage, on 12/20/2007, -0/+9It's interesting, how does the Federal government know what's best for a state that it doesn't even consider worthy during elections? There is a severe conflict of interests here, and if we want to be held to a higher standard we should be allowed.
- nrose101, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6This is why we need Ron Paul to give the states back control!
- Nudar, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6First they try to destroy Springfield. Then this. What's next?
- breezytrees, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6what would that do? this is just an example of the fed stomping on states rights. the EPA definitely knows that global warming exists... it just wants to have the sole power of regulating it, not the states
- kenedamick, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Wow - what a pillar of credentials. "GLENNBECK.COM"
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Newsweek of course is the world's most credible scientific journal, widely peer reviewed and cited extensively in scientific literature the world over.
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Or this might not be part of that natural cycle. I'm sure you know which is actually happening based on tons of research and not just your gut feeling on the way things must be and how stupid scientists are.
- breezytrees, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4true reason: federalism vs. federalists.
Federalism has been winning for the past 100 years. - StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7I'd like a little consistency, apparently abortion is an issue best left to the states because we don't like the Federal statutes, but environmentalism and marijuana is Federal because we don't like the state statutes..
- ramedia, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Would this be the same federal government that up until six months ago stated unequivocally that global warming didn't even exist. Now they have a plan to combat global warming? I'd like to see that 3 page plan.
- PFinn, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3anyone know the actual reasons why the EPA wouldnt allow California to implement their own standards? If the standards are more strict than the federal guidlines then it seems like California would have to regulate their own standards, thus saving much time and money for the EPA, since if California was following the stricter standards then they would logically have to be also following the more lack national EPA standards. Or (as another digger so eloquently questioned) am i just letting my stupid flag fly?
- JoeVet, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3According to all fact based data we should be in a cooling period and we are not. Not only are we not in a cooling period but we are warming at a rate never experience by the earth, according to data from antarctic ice cores. And that warming coincides with the industrial revolution. Now unless you have another theory that explains the deviation from the last 400 thousand years then man made global warming has got to be the best explanation. Now you have the opportunity to educate yourself or continue to parrot the idiots of the right wing who have no understanding of science. I would even suggest that not only have you never picked up a scientific journal but that you barely understand the gibberish that Glen Beck feeds you but since he hates the right people you just follow blindly without a second thought in your head.
- sotopheavy, on 12/20/2007, -4/+7You realize these car companies don't have to take the national legislation seriously. They can release 3 different tiny electric hybrid cars that are cheaply made with a safety rating of 1 star, no power windows, radio, or power steering that gets 50 to 60 MPG, price them at $50,000 and keep all their old gas guzzlers and bring their average up to 35 mpg. And they have 12 years to do this. There needs to be a minimum mileage like 25 to 30 MPG in 2020.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3TARGETED FOR TERMINATION.
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3No, but you go with the best information you have, which is peer-reviewed -- not with what your gut wants to believe just because its convenient, or because its cool, or because a bunch of people you like believe it.
Global cooling was never big in the scientific literature of the time, the only place you can find anything about it is the popular media. One scientist had an idea, published a paper, and OMG the world is freezing. Quite unlike the number of papers published showing strong evidence for global warming -- like the growing CO2 absorbtion lines occuring in the thermal reradiation of the earth. - breckinshire, on 12/20/2007, -1/+3I don't know why you were dugg down.
- wrenchone, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2No, they can't. CAFE standards are based on cars SOLD. Auto companies can't just make a super efficient car and say there, we did it; They actually have to sell the car to someone for it to count.
- arplayer2k, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2F*ck the EPA. Bunch of bureaucratic B/S which happens in this country when we want any kind of forward progress made.
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Lots of right wing politicians. We need to overturn Roe v. Wade because its an unconsitutional invasion into state rights (states should be allowed to outlaw abortion if they want). California voters directly decided to allow medical marijuana, but the courts ruled that Federal laws took precidence and the DEA stepped in.
Whether you are for or against state rights, at least among right wingers, seems to largely be a matter of which way the laws are blowing.
Oh, I forgot about gay marriage. Apparently thats a Federal issue. - jerbaker, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2There would be less net carbon emissions if we burned aborted fetuses for power too, but the problem is that there are other considerations aside from CO2 emissions. Diesel, before the low sulfur requirements, produced a plethora of nasty pollutants that cause all kinds of health problems.
- Stemnin, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2The EPA just officially became the OPA.
- burkinaboy, on 12/20/2007, -3/+5Whuuuh? That's it. I'm moving to New Zealand. If even that is far enough away to keep out the Shadow.
- JoeVet, on 12/20/2007, -0/+250 years ago we didn't know that DNA determined genetic traits. 100 years ago we didn't know about the germ theory of disease. 500 years ago we thought that the earth was flat. Science and technology continue to evolve. Apparently you haven't. Be careful of those dragons at the worlds end!
- jerbaker, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2The real test of an alleged states rights advocate is whether they are for states rights under all circumstances that don't violate the Constitution. Things like a carbon emissions limit, limitations on union-busting or strike-breaking, and other things unpopular with Libertarians. If they believe that a state should be allowed to enact such laws, then they're a true states rights advocate, otherwise they're just a hypocrite cloaking themselves in a cause that they believe will allow them to circumvent Federal laws they don't like.
- jerbaker, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Perhaps a book on CD version would be better. You're assuming they can read.
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Its a poor troll, but seriously: Not as much as conservatives have demonstrated they do: Gay Marriage, Medical Marijuana, No Child Left Behind, Speed Limits, Abortion (oh wait, no, then they WANT states rights). I thought liberals loved taxing and spending. Like conservatives love just spending.
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2No it doesn't. The blueprints have been sitting there since the 70s. Why is it that American compacts get 23 miles to the gallon, but a regular Honda civic can get 35.
THINK. I know you're a digger, but it doesn't preclude doing so. - inactive, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Big surprise, just as I predicted millions wasted on lawyers on a lawsuit without any merit whatsoever.
No state has the right to implement it's own de facto treaties and that is all this non-sense is.
If CO2 reduction is such a big deal the states can implement it via tax incentives to encourage it in industry where 80% of CO2 is created. The real reason Cal is so excited about this BS is the tax REVENUE it will brig by FURTHER taxing our millions of drivers, drivers that have no real choice in that public transportation in this state is mostly useless or nonexistent.
This is just another stark example of a cleaver political fraud so gliyfuly embraced with little or no evaluation of the facts and real impacts. Greentard thinking at it's best............ - walkingdogs, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2By 2020 we should be required to be off of oil all together or a minimum of 60 mpg. 25-30 mpg is a pathetic rating to have TODAY let alone 12 years from now.
- breezytrees, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2what? who says this?
- captbbq, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would support California is doing this. In fact he would get a lot of support if he used these 13 states as an example during campaining.
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1global warming is a hoax
- alricsca, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1What drives me nuts is the fact that both China and Europe have had higher fuel standards than ours for years, yet I do not see cars costing outrageous amounts of money or plants closing there. In fact they are doing better than we are. So what is the freakin issue?
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Right, and make inefficient cars into a status symbol. "I'm so rich I can afford to rape the environment." And he should be allowed to, too, because he's better than everyone else as he can afford it.
I'm all for a tax on consumption, but certain old technologies that are harmful should be banned outright, and you shouldn't allow companies to average out their harm. The median AND mean should be enforced, not just one or the other. - StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Oh, and I forgot the drinking age and abstinence education.
- StaticThunder, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0I'd also like to know how I can completely insulate my house for $10.
- rizzo2008, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2Thats total *****. It costs a huge amount of money and time to redevelop cars to meet these hypocritical standards (they don't apply to trucking, busing, etc). You can save the same amount of CO2 by using better insulation for $10 than paying $1000s more for the same amount of CO2 saved in your car.
- DarKnyht, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1They weren't implementing their own treaty, as that would imply they are making a deal with another country. They were making a state law that applied to people/corporate entities that are living/operating within their state borders.
- rizzo2008, on 12/20/2007, -2/+2As much as the EPA has failed at auto emissions California's current and planned system sucks. They have single handedly prevented the proliferation of more fuel efficient diesel passenger cars (which emit less CO2 by the way) in the United States which is counter productive and has actually increased our consumption of oil. Of course it still ignores the fact that most of California's CO2 is from generating electricity and industry.
- HopalongMcGurk, on 03/06/2008, -0/+0Yes, and to make it as easy on auto manufacturers as possible.
- inactive, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0Or they sell one car with only two gears: Park and Over park. It will be gas electric where the gas engine only starts for speeds in excess of 5mph. There would only be one car and because its fuel mileage would be infinity they would be able to use the largest number they can think of for its gas mileage. This would create a fuel average that would be mathematically impossible thus proofing how stupid it is that the government has this kind of control. Ron Paul 08
- MWeather, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Republican is a political party, not a political ideology. If the party doesn't follow your ideology, it is you who is not a Republican.
- jedimasta, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2But what happens when the local standard is weaker? I agree with you to a certain extent, but the question becomes who should say which standard is better? In a way it's kinda like smoking 'sections' in a restaurant. You can cordon off an area specifically for smokers, but the smoke doesn't stay in those imaginary boundaries, it just goes where it goes. LA industry and traffic is fouling up California's own air, but ultimately it affects the planet, not that I'm a tree huggin hippie, but you get the idea.
On a side note... power to the people? Have you seen what people do with power? YouTube (not to mention hospitals) are filled with people who were granted some small amount of power and had no idea what to do with it. Unfortunately for us humans, the lowest common denominator also happens to have the highest population count. I'm not suggesting the alternatives (aristocratic, monarchy or otherwise), but a balance has to be found in every society or that society will destroy itself. - JoeVet, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1Neo-cons really are todays Republican party. You are just deluding yourself to think otherwise.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is