Hydramatic

You can pretty much consider them gone anyway, Chrysler wins most of the police contracts these days. When most of those Crown Vics reach 100K miles, they'll probably be replaced with Chargers.

DrkPhynx

It may be semantics hanging us up, however, the individual is what matters, not the group. Think about it - if every individual is taken care of, the group, by default, is taken care of. Now, by "taken care of" I mean, essentially, given priority.

The way things were originally set up (and intended to be) IS absolute freedom with only 1 exception - you can't harm others or impede their rights.

But the minute people latch onto that and try to use it as an excuse to whittle things away and start chanting "the good of the many", things go straight to socialist hell. -> as is being done with and by the EPA. (back on topic, hehe)

XxGarbSxX

Incorrect. Or at least inaccurate. What you are thinking of is license. People do whatever they want and use the word "Freedom" to split with the consequences. Pure and unadulterated freedom is a good thing, because you can't have freedom without responsibility. The problems arise when people are not responsible, which you see a lot of today. People don't want to be responsible for themselves and continually look for ways and places to pass blame. In the case of Shirley Phelps and the whole Phelps cult (not responsible people), they're doing what I just talked about: using freedom and our First Amendment as excuses to act with license and skirt any consequences. Fortunately, they're not always successful. They don't seem to like dealing with the consequences of their own actions, but they sure do love "freedom".

"The good of the many" is a bullshit phrase used to get people to give up their own responsibility, and thusly their own freedom. That's exactly what the EPA is doing here. Unfortunately, a majority of people in this country are lazy and would rather not have to take care of their own responsibilities and readily give up freedoms pertaining to those responsibilities. They're too lazy to fight for their rights, so they just readily give them up.

QSZ

well, i very strongly disagree with taxing the wealthy more than anyone else. they have worked hard to be where they are, they do not deserve to pay half what they make. thats just wrong.

who knows, maybe ill run for president when my time comes... only a couple more election cycles. i also have a real hard time understanding why our congress spends billions and billions on worthless ****. this country doesnt take 900 billion to run. get rid of the hand outs, and stop taxing the wealthy. start holding people accountable for their own actions, and for f's sake, put a damn cap on the amount of children allowed to families. the us is becoming overpopulated quite quickly.

mikey

iTrader: (6)

Many I could not have said that better myself!

brejcha

Look at all the V8 power plant cabs that drive through towns, or the big diesal trucks and school buses. Come on government, let us keep the few toys we havee, and start regulating those beasts.

speedshifterNC

iTrader: (1)

what can they stop?....everything is emissions legal

98NATA

As mentioned i love how we get more and more safety things put in our cars to make them boats which hurts mpg and now we'll just have 4000+lb cars getting in accidents not lighter ones. But anyway as also stated why do they go after the minority of cars with power, some of which like the vette doesnt get bad gas mileage, focus on trucks/suv's and econo cars, they sell more anyway, the few people who buy performance cars should still have that choice

Z ROADSTER

Yeah , right . Poor little ole Exxon . They only made 43.5 BILLION last quarter & thats Profit ( net ) mind you . Thats the largest profit margin that any company has EVER made in the history of this country . And yet Bushy & his cronies gave them huge tax breaks last year because "THEY DESERVED IT" ? Last I heard GE-Dupont-& most of the other big corporations paid 0 tax for the last several years while the right wing wacko's were in charge . It appears our government is the front men for the big corporations not for the middle class. They feed at the public traw while the rest of us fight for the crumbs that fall off their table. All the while holding one hand behind them for the big corporations to fill under the table. Nothing will change. If we elect a good man they'll just kill em or run him out of office with lies & other dirty tricks. Those who are crooks are very very good at what they do .

DrkPhynx

"Right-wing wackos"

Put the kool-aid down, and step away from CNN for a few minutes, maybe, just MAYBE, your head will clear. If not, perhaps a doctor can help you with your RCI.

The jackass party does it every bit as much as the reps. They just have a lapdog in the press so all their indescretions are kept hush-hush so people don't hear about it, allowing the jackasses to convince the sheep that it's all the mean-ol' republicans who do that crap.

DrkPhynx

Coming back on topic again - So the EPA wants to end the "horsepower war", meaning focusing on raw HP numbers... But they really aim to take down V8s in the name of efficiency.

Now as we've already addressed, increasing weight from safety regs kills mpg, and SUVs and trucks and gov't fleet vehicles seem to be exempt from this, and of course they are ignoring real and better alternatives. So in short, it's a prime candidate for Penn and Teller's Bullshit.

(just a recap ), but something just occured to me... since they want to take down V8s in the name of mpgs... what will they do about Evo's and such? The FQ400 has 400hp from a tiny 4-banger. And it's not getting good mpg because power=fuel+air, so it takes fuel to make power, and on top of that, you know Evo owners are not miserly with the loud pedal.

But I guess I just mean, if they succeed and everything goes boosted small displacement, things will be no different, and perhaps even worse, than they are now. On top of which, those little engines are being strained and won't last as long as a big "lazy" V8. So in the end, they are hurting the economy to boot.

.... just rambling. lol

jimmy169

Man I couldn't agree more, I just didn't wanna be the only one to say anything so I said screw it.


Well said!

Gaunt's_Girl

iTrader: (1)

Everything seems to be so hypocritical. "We don't want you to drive 'gas-guzzlers', yet we're not going to change a damn thing ourselves."

Screw those people

Rhedalert

iTrader: (21)

Yup, and it's WASTEFUL to have to constantly produce replacement prop 4 bangers.

snake hunter

Actually ExxonMobil's US tax bill from 2002-2006 was 59.9 billion dollars. This actually exceeded US earnings which were 39.5 billion. Around 70% of EM's earnings come from outside the US. Their profit margin is actually less than the pharmaceudical and electronics industries. For the third quarter of 2007, their wordwide tax rate was 46%. You want to tax them more??? Ok then they would have that much less to invest in capital projects, which by the way was $82 billion dollars from 2002-2006. This is to search for new supplies, expand refining capacity, developing new technoligies, etc. This is with all of the large industries, not just petroleum which translates into many new jobs, and so forth. Unfortunately, high tax rates and the EPA is driving many businesses overseas. You HEARD that big corporations paid 0 taxes??? This is just not true. Plus they spawn many small businesses which are the backbone of our economy. Sorry if I confused you with some facts.

Jordan S.

iTrader: (17)

!#%* those hippies!



The war for horsepower is science and math at its finest, a showing and compition of some of the greatest brains in the automotive industry. Screw those tree hugging *** holes.

Z ROADSTER

Yeah , sure ! And I promise not to come in your mouth .

DrkPhynx

lol! Such a predictable response. (the chosen party symbol is SOOO apropriate it couldn't have been funnier if they tried)

Ok - so since it's your claim that zero taxes were paid, please provide proof of this. If not, stick to discussion about the EPA.

JD_AMG

The FQ400 isn't sold in America...
Either way all companies that don't meet the standards will just be taxed a certain amount of money.

XxGarbSxX

Ignoring the fact that taxation of personal income from employment is illegal, does someone who makes $2,000,000 a year need 20% of their income as much as someone who makes $20,000 a year needs 20% of their income? They make more money, so they need a smaller percent of their total income than someone who makes considerably less. It's not about taxing them more because they don't deserve nice things despite their hard work (assuming they worked hard to earn the money in the first place), it's about taxing them more because they can afford to give more and still have nice things. The key word there is NEED. No one needs a 120 acre plot of land with a bajillion square foot house. The fact is that people that make more can afford to give more, and you can't always count on someone to spend a lot of money.

There's wackos on both sides. Failure to realize such leads to misguided judgment, misinformation, no information, loss of common sense and ability to reason, and oral diarrhea. Personally, I have no political affiliation, I tend to lean republican on certain issues and democratic on others. Right now, the republican party disgusts me. They're not republicans, they're neo-conservative theocrats. Republicans were typically fiscally conservative, favored small government and low taxes, and promoted personal freedom. Many modern "republicans" want big spending, big government, low taxes for the rich, less personal freedom for the sake of "national security", no personal privacy, and oil oil oil. Modern democrats just want socialism.