California is suing carmakers for global warming

[Ban Hammer 13,293]

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Ironically, the city on wheels would die. Can you imagine the outcry from Hollywood actors??

No, but I can imagine the outcry from all the conservatives inhabiting Southern California screaming even louder than the few actors who actually live in L.A.. Ever wondered who put Arnie in power in the first place if the state is sooooooo overrun by "liberal actors"??

conservatives in cali? is that the start of a joke?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Ironically, the city on wheels would die. Can you imagine the outcry from Hollywood actors??

Here's some food for thought...

The economy of California is a dominant force in the economy of the United States, with California paying more to the federal system than it receives in benefits.

California is the world's fifth largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities.

The exports of goods made in California totaled $94 billion in 2003. Nearly $40 billion of that total was computers and electronics, followed by agriculture, non-electrical machinery, transportation, and chemicals.

Historically, California's economy has been controlled by huge corporations such as the Southern Pacific Railroad, Standard Oil of California and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

According to The World Factbook published by the CIA, if California were an independent nation, it would have had the tenth largest economy in the world.

... you ought to get step out of your cave sometime.

[mawilson 2,133]

conservatives in cali? is that the start of a joke?

According to my wife (who is from California), California is mostly a conservative state,

with the exception of San Francisco / Bay Area (and Hollywood )

[Fischkoepfin 1]

conservatives in cali? is that the start of a joke?

According to my wife (who is from California), California is mostly a conservative state,

with the exception of San Francisco / Bay Area (and Hollywood )

That's exactly what I heard. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense that CA frequently has republican governors, had been a home to two republican presidents (and not a single democratic one) and so on. So, in a way it's just like the state of New York where NYC is the only place to find liberals.

[homesick_american 1]

conservatives in cali? is that the start of a joke?

According to my wife (who is from California), California is mostly a conservative state,

with the exception of San Francisco / Bay Area (and Hollywood )

That's exactly what I heard. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense that CA frequently has republican governors, had been a home to two republican presidents (and not a single democratic one) and so on. So, in a way it's just like the state of New York where NYC is the only place to find liberals.

San Diego and Orange County are pretty damn conservative.

[Ban Hammer 13,293]

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Ironically, the city on wheels would die. Can you imagine the outcry from Hollywood actors??

Here's some food for thought...

The economy of California is a dominant force in the economy of the United States, with California paying more to the federal system than it receives in benefits.

California is the world's fifth largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities.

The exports of goods made in California totaled $94 billion in 2003. Nearly $40 billion of that total was computers and electronics, followed by agriculture, non-electrical machinery, transportation, and chemicals.

Historically, California's economy has been controlled by huge corporations such as the Southern Pacific Railroad, Standard Oil of California and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

According to The World Factbook published by the CIA, if California were an independent nation, it would have had the tenth largest economy in the world.

... you ought to get step out of your cave sometime.

hey steven....if we subtracted what hollyweird and the statewide porn industry brings in, what would be the total then?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Ironically, the city on wheels would die. Can you imagine the outcry from Hollywood actors??

Here's some food for thought...

The economy of California is a dominant force in the economy of the United States, with California paying more to the federal system than it receives in benefits.

California is the world's fifth largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities.

The exports of goods made in California totaled $94 billion in 2003. Nearly $40 billion of that total was computers and electronics, followed by agriculture, non-electrical machinery, transportation, and chemicals.

Historically, California's economy has been controlled by huge corporations such as the Southern Pacific Railroad, Standard Oil of California and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

According to The World Factbook published by the CIA, if California were an independent nation, it would have had the tenth largest economy in the world.

... you ought to get step out of your cave sometime.

hey steven....if we subtracted what hollyweird and the statewide porn industry brings in, what would be the total then?

It would still be a massive economy considering that most produce consumed in the US comes from CA and the electronics sector is also huge. Charles, I know you hate CA, but as someone coming from a state that heavily relies on federal money, you should be thankful that people in California (and most other "blue" states) have no problem supporting the rest of the nation through their taxes.

[Ban Hammer 13,293]

It would still be a massive economy considering that most produce consumed in the US comes from CA and the electronics sector is also huge. Charles, I know you hate CA, but as someone coming from a state that heavily relies on federal money, you should be thankful that people in California (and most other "blue" states) have no problem supporting the rest of the nation through their taxes.

and just how does kansas rely heavily on federal money?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

It would still be a massive economy considering that most produce consumed in the US comes from CA and the electronics sector is also huge. Charles, I know you hate CA, but as someone coming from a state that heavily relies on federal money, you should be thankful that people in California (and most other "blue" states) have no problem supporting the rest of the nation through their taxes.

and just how does kansas rely heavily on federal money?

For every dollar Kansas citizens pay in federal income tax they get $1.12 back from the federal government. Compare that to California.

[Ban Hammer 13,293]

It would still be a massive economy considering that most produce consumed in the US comes from CA and the electronics sector is also huge. Charles, I know you hate CA, but as someone coming from a state that heavily relies on federal money, you should be thankful that people in California (and most other "blue" states) have no problem supporting the rest of the nation through their taxes.

and just how does kansas rely heavily on federal money?

For every dollar Kansas citizens pay in federal income tax they get $1.12 back from the federal government. Compare that to California.

and that to you is "rely heavily" eh?

[Fischkoepfin 1]

It would still be a massive economy considering that most produce consumed in the US comes from CA and the electronics sector is also huge. Charles, I know you hate CA, but as someone coming from a state that heavily relies on federal money, you should be thankful that people in California (and most other "blue" states) have no problem supporting the rest of the nation through their taxes.

and just how does kansas rely heavily on federal money?

For every dollar Kansas citizens pay in federal income tax they get $1.12 back from the federal government. Compare that to California.

and that to you is "rely heavily" eh?

As an inhabitant of a state that keeps Kansas afloat, I would say, yes. I find it somewhat paradoxical that states whose inhabitants are opposed to federal taxation and to the big states in general have no qualms acceppting alms from those same states. And a return of 12% on every dollar is pretty heavy (although there are worse culprits).

Edited September 26, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[Ban Hammer 13,293]

As an inhabitant of a state that keeps Kansas afloat, I would say, yes. I find it somewhat paradoxical that states whose inhabitants are opposed to federal taxation and to the big states in general have no qualms acceppting alms from those same states. And a return of 12% on every dollar is pretty heavy (although there are worse culprits).

so what is that 12 cents on the dollar spent on?

(and given that map, i'd not call kansas a state that "relies heavily" on that.

[mrsushi66 0]

I actually did a bit of looking and every time the government has pushed for better fuel standards the automakers countered with ad campaigns that in my opinion bordered on fear mongering. For example they ran an advert in the late 70's early 80's that showed a smaler car being crushed by a larger car in an accident and it said we can make more fuel efficient cars but at what cost.

So if you are going to advertise and promote the gas guzzlers and use fear to keep people from being evironmentally responsible vehicles then yes I think you should be held responsible for such things. The bottom line is simple, the profit margin is higher on SUV's and gas guzzlers so they did everything could and they used what would be called a smear campaign in politics to tell people if they bought fuel efficient cars they would be killing their family to influence people not to buy fuel efficient vehicles. Then when so few people bought the fuel efficient cars they then went to the government and said see we offer fuel efficient cars but no one wants to buy them.

But no worries, Ford has already proven they are going to reap what they sow and it is unfortunate that so many american jobs will be lost but that is what happens when you stop evolving and evaluating what is best for the world rather than what is best for the bottom line.

Paul

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I actually did a bit of looking and every time the government has pushed for better fuel standards the automakers countered with ad campaigns that in my opinion bordered on fear mongering. For example they ran an advert in the late 70's early 80's that showed a smaler car being crushed by a larger car in an accident and it said we can make more fuel efficient cars but at what cost.

So if you are going to advertise and promote the gas guzzlers and use fear to keep people from being evironmentally responsible vehicles then yes I think you should be held responsible for such things. The bottom line is simple, the profit margin is higher on SUV's and gas guzzlers so they did everything could and they used what would be called a smear campaign in politics to tell people if they bought fuel efficient cars they would be killing their family to influence people not to buy fuel efficient vehicles. Then when so few people bought the fuel efficient cars they then went to the government and said see we offer fuel efficient cars but no one wants to buy them.

But no worries, Ford has already proven they are going to reap what they sow and it is unfortunate that so many american jobs will be lost but that is what happens when you stop evolving and evaluating what is best for the world rather than what is best for the bottom line.

Paul

Well said. I would add that our own Federal Gov't's tax breaks for large vehicles also had a lot to do with SUV's popularity.

[mawilson 2,133]

Well said. I would add that our own Federal Gov't's tax breaks for large vehicles also had a lot to do with SUV's popularity.

SUVs are popular because they are big and useful -- and always will be (especially

for big families.)

I understand you don't have a problem with SUVs per se, but rather the fact that

SUVs tend to be gas-guzzling polluters, right?