NationStates Jolt Archive

The US state of California is suing six
of the world's biggest car makers over
greenhouse gas emissions.

California's Attorney General Bill
Lockyer said he would be seeking
millions of dollars in compensation for
the impact cars have on the state's
resources, infrastructure and
environment.

The six named in the lawsuit are
General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler,
Honda & Nissan. The car industry has
described the move as silly season
politics and an attempt to grab
headlines before the US mid-term
elections.


Is there really such a thing as silly season in the US. Isn't suing the companies for selling something legal just wasting more money and state resources.Besides surely pollution dosn't respect state boarders.

It will get thrown out of court. It's as dumb as suing McDonalds for making people fat.

Wow, how dumb is that! California has had decades to build a great public transportation network and to reduce its dependence on cars, but it has done nothing but sit on its ass. Where where they when everyone was buying SUVs in the 90's and oil demand was rising at 2-3% per year? People decided to buy cars, and they knew full well the consequences of it; the government of California could've fought to raise standards or restrict CO2 in its economy but they didn't because of politics. Now that it's a great time politically to jump on global warming as a political issue, they're going to try and sue the car companies for the situation the government of California willingly created! All the auto and oil companies did was supply the products people wanted...they're as guilty as McDonalds when it comes to making people fat.

We knew global warming was happening, we knew CO2 emissions were rising and we knew that oil demand was bad for the environment but they sat on their asses and did nothing to really control it. But that's okay, because gas was only $1 and we can turn a blind eye to these problems as long as our poll numbers are good.

It's even more hypocritical when you realize that California ripped out a lot of its public transportation at the behest of GM back in the 1950's...This is just an attempt to pile on to the global-warming bandwagon and appear tough on the environment. Instead, they just look like a bunch of fools launching a frivolous lawsuit for political gain; I mean, it's like suing McDonalds for making you fat. Honestly, the money they waste on suing someone else for their own mistakes could be spent actually solving the problem rather than just driving businesses away with frivolous, politically motivated anti-business crusades.

And how many tax dollars are going to be wasted in this effort? I guess since the lawyers can't sue the firearm companies, they have to find someone to blame.

Link (http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/26976.html), if you want to read the whole article.

EDIT: Guess the link asks for a login, so here's the full text:

State sues automakers over warming
By Dale Kasler - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 21, 2006
California's ongoing courtroom battle with the auto industry over environmental issues kicked into higher gear Wednesday when state Attorney General Bill Lockyer sued the leading automakers, accusing them of contributing to global warming through tailpipe emissions.

Lockyer's suit said General Motors, Toyota and four other major carmakers share blame for such maladies as the decline of the California snowpack, the increased threat of wildfires and worsened urban air pollution.

The suit represented the latest in a series of global-warming lawsuits pitting California and other states against automakers, power generators and other titans of industry.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland, the suit said the automakers are "among the world's largest contributors" to global warming and demanded they pay unspecified monetary damages to the state.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers called Lockyer's claim a "nuisance suit" and noted that the courts rejected a similar case he and other attorneys general filed against the electric utility industry.

"Automakers are already building cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles," the group said in a statement.

With Lockyer running for state treasurer in November, the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., dismissed the suit as an attempt to gain votes. "I don't think it means anymore than it says. It's California politics," said center economist Sean McAlinden.

But Lockyer spokeswoman Teresa Schilling denied that charge. "We are trying to hold them accountable for the damage that has occurred," she said. "The industry has had ample opportunity to step up and limit their tailpipe emissions; they have not done so."

The Union of Concerned Scientists welcomed the suit. "Automakers must do their fair share to protect Californians from global warming," the group's vehicles director, Jason Mark, said in a prepared statement. "Passenger vehicles are the single-largest global warming polluter in the state, accounting for 27 percent of emissions."

The suit is a fairly novel approach to tackling global warming, said Margaret Johns, a University of California, Davis, expert who consulted with California officials when they won billions from the tobacco industry to reimburse the state for Medi-Cal expenses.

In the tobacco case, experts provided estimates as to how many Medi-Cal recipients suffered smoking-related illnesses, she said. From those estimates, they could calculate the state's costs.

"But with global warming, I don't know how you could come up with a figure," she said.

Named as defendants were General Motors Corp., the Chrysler Motors unit of DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Co., and the U.S. units of Toyota, Honda and Nissan.

The Lockyer suit comes as concern over global warming is at unprecedented levels. The Legislature just passed, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he'll sign, a landmark bill that calls for a 25 percent cut in the state's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Under Assembly Bill 32, the California Air Resources Board would assign emission ceilings to large industrial users like power plants and oil refineries.

It also comes just months after Lockyer and nine other attorneys general sued the Bush administration, saying it ignored global warming when it set new fuel economy standards for sport-utility vehicles and light trucks. Although the new standards require manufacturers to increase gas mileage for those vehicles, the lawsuit says the administration should have tightened the standards even more.

It was less than two years ago when the auto industry -- manufacturers plus several California car dealers -- sued the state to stop it from implementing strict new limits on tailpipe emissions. The new limits are due to take effect in 2009, and the lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court in Fresno.

States are increasingly turning to the courts to press environmental concerns. California, 11 other states and two cities are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its policies on greenhouse gases.

Lockyer, seven other attorneys general and the city of New York also sued the electric power industry to force it to reduce emissions from coal-fired generating plants. A federal judge in New York threw out the case last fall, saying the issue should be up to the White House and Congress, not the courts.

Bill Lockyer is running for Tresurer in Nov. That is all. :)

It's the American thing to do! When in doubt, sue the bastard(s)!

Is there really such a thing as silly season in the US. Isn't suing the companies for selling something legal just wasting more money and state resources.Besides surely pollution dosn't respect state boarders.
Actually, I could probably draw a straight line from this lawsuit right back to the lawsuit California filed against Big Tobacco. Courts love precedent.

Actually, I could probably draw a straight line from this lawsuit right back to the lawsuit California filed against Big Tobacco. Courts love precedent.

But teh tabacco companies lied about the health effects of their product and deliberately bread crops for high nicotine content t addict smokers.

Bill Lockyer is running for California Treasurer in November. That is all. :)

But teh tabacco companies lied about the health effects of their product and deliberately bread crops for high nicotine content t addict smokers.
What company DOESN'T lie to some degree to sell its product?

What company DOESN'T lie to some degree to sell its product?

That probably won't fly in court.

Lockyer: Your honor, the tabacco companies lied to smokers and deliberately increased addicve chemicals in their products to make it hard to quit.

Judge: But this is a lawsuit against car companies over global warming.

Lockyer: Your honor, what company doesn't lie to some degree to sell their product?

In the tabacco suit you could show that tobacco companies deliberately falsified information that leads to people's deaths. You could also show that they deliberatly grew tobacco for high niccotine so that people would become addicted and to make it harder to quit smoking.

Car companies are selling a legal product that has rigorous safety standards and that, far from wontonly polluting the atmosphere, have complied with the toughest clean air standards in the country - the Ca AQMD standards.

Wow, how dumb is that! California has had decades to build a great public transportation network and to reduce its dependence on cars, but it has done nothing but sit on its ass. Where where they when everyone was buying SUVs in the 90's and oil demand was rising at 2-3% per year? People decided to buy cars, and they knew full well the consequences of it; the government of California could've fought to raise standards or restrict CO2 in its economy but they didn't because of politics. Now that it's a great time politically to jump on global warming as a political issue, they're going to try and sue the car companies for the situation the government of California willingly created! All the auto and oil companies did was supply the products people wanted...they're as guilty as McDonalds when it comes to making people fat.

We knew global warming was happening, we knew CO2 emissions were rising and we knew that oil demand was bad for the environment but they sat on their asses and did nothing to really control it. But that's okay, because gas was only $1 and we can turn a blind eye to these problems as long as our poll numbers are good.

It's even more hypocritical when you realize that California ripped out a lot of its public transportation at the behest of GM back in the 1950's...This is just an attempt to pile on to the global-warming bandwagon and appear tough on the environment. Instead, they just look like a bunch of fools launching a frivolous lawsuit for political gain; I mean, it's like suing McDonalds for making you fat. Honestly, the money they waste on suing someone else for their own mistakes could be spent actually solving the problem rather than just driving businesses away with frivolous, politically motivated anti-business crusades.

Thank you. I don't need to say anything, because you said it all.

But teh tabacco companies lied about the health effects of their product and deliberately bread crops for high nicotine content t addict smokers.



And many car manufacturers and oil companies have continually spread misinformation about global warming, and have deliberately built and marketed high fuel consumption vehicles. As V also mentions, GM got together with one of the oil companies (Mobil?) and one of the tire companies, bought up public transportation companies in major American cities, and ran them into the ground so they could sell more cars. I don't think the car manufacturers are any better than the tobacco companies.

Isn't suing the companies for selling something legal just wasting more money and state resources.Besides surely pollution dosn't respect state boarders.

Just because selling something is legal does not mean you are free to sell it in a way that causes harm to others.

Wow, how dumb is that! California has had decades to build a great public transportation network and to reduce its dependence on cars, but it has done nothing but sit on its ass. Where where they when everyone was buying SUVs in the 90's and oil demand was rising at 2-3% per year? People decided to buy cars, and they knew full well the consequences of it; the government of California could've fought to raise standards or restrict CO2 in its economy but they didn't because of politics. Now that it's a great time politically to jump on global warming as a political issue, they're going to try and sue the car companies for the situation the government of California willingly created! All the auto and oil companies did was supply the products people wanted...they're as guilty as McDonalds when it comes to making people fat.

We knew global warming was happening, we knew CO2 emissions were rising and we knew that oil demand was bad for the environment but they sat on their asses and did nothing to really control it. But that's okay, because gas was only $1 and we can turn a blind eye to these problems as long as our poll numbers are good.

It's even more hypocritical when you realize that California ripped out a lot of its public transportation at the behest of GM back in the 1950's...This is just an attempt to pile on to the global-warming bandwagon and appear tough on the environment. Instead, they just look like a bunch of fools launching a frivolous lawsuit for political gain; I mean, it's like suing McDonalds for making you fat. Honestly, the money they waste on suing someone else for their own mistakes could be spent actually solving the problem rather than just driving businesses away with frivolous, politically motivated anti-business crusades.

It is not government's responsibility alone to tackle these problems ... it is everyone's, including industry. Government inaction on the issue does not let industry off the hook. Especially since industry was actively undermining efforts by governments to tackle the problem. California did not rip up the tram tracks ... GM and their cohorts did it after they had bought up the transportation companies. Exxon has consistently opposed efforts to tackle climate change. All of these companies are responsible, and must bear their share of the cost to fix the problem.

And many car manufacturers and oil companies have continually spread misinformation about global warming, and have deliberately built and marketed high fuel consumption vehicles. As V also mentions, GM got together with one of the oil companies (Mobil?) and one of the tire companies, bought up public transportation companies in major American cities, and ran them into the ground so they could sell more cars. I don't think the car manufacturers are any better than the tobacco companies.

It's Firestone, GM and Standard Oil and they were already tried and convicted in court once. You can't sue for the same crime twice.

All of that aside, the car manufacturers have operated within the legal framework set by the governments of the United States and the State of California, in particular the Air Quality Management District. They haven't lied about what their products are. They have not tried to get people addicted to their products.

Look, I believe that global warming is as serious an issue as humanity has ever faced and i believe that human beings are the reason it is happening and I believe that we are causeing it by burning fossil fuels. As a matter in fact, not ten minutes ago I just finnished watching An Inconvenient Truth because we are making dubs for foreign release here at work and I coudn't agree more with what Al Gore had to say. But this is just cheap election year posturing. The guy's been Attorney General for almost four years and is now running for Treasurer not two months from now. Why does he wait until the September before the election to file the suit? All of this is just wasted energy. If the State of California wants to do something about global warming they should pass a law that all major producers and consumers of energy buy carbon licenses from a place like https://www.terrapass.com/ . There are far more constructive ways to battle this problem and it requires innovative programs and solutions, not court battles with auto manufacturers who have only operated in an environment set by legislation and consumer taste.

It's Firestone, GM and Standard Oil and they were already tried and convicted in court once. You can't sue for the same crime twice.

They were found criminally responsible and fined a whopping $5,000 each. But they can still be found civilly liable.


They haven't lied about what their products are. They have not tried to get people addicted to their products.

They have lied and misled people about what effects their products have on the environment. They have done everything in their power to maintain our car culture and our addition to fossil fuels.


Look, I believe that global warming is as serious an issue as humanity has ever faced and i believe that human beings are the reason it is happening and I believe that we are causeing it by burning fossil fuels. As a matter in fact, not ten minutes ago I just finnished watching An Inconvenient Truth because we are making dubs for foreign release here at work and I coudn't agree more with what Al Gore had to say. But this is just cheap election year posturing. The guy's been Attorney General for almost four years and is now running for Treasurer not two months from now. Why does he wait until the September before the election to file the suit? All of this is just wasted energy.

The fact that it is politically motivated does not make it wrong.


If the State of California wants to do something about global warming they should pass a law that all major producers and consumers of energy buy carbon licenses from a place like https://www.terrapass.com/ .


That is a way of dealing with future emissions. What about taking responsibility for past emissions.


There are far more constructive ways to battle this problem and it requires innovative programs and solutions, not court battles with auto manufacturers who have only operated in an environment set by legislation and consumer taste.

Car manufacturers have used their lobbying powers to influence the legislation, and have used their marketing powers to influence consumer tastes ... in particular preferences for big gas-guzzling SUV's. They must take responsibility for their actions.

What an incredible waste of taxpayer money. This AG should be thrown out in the next election. The problem is that the people of California are so stupid that they will probably reward this idiot with another term in office.

What an incredible waste of taxpayer money. This AG should be thrown out in the next election. The problem is that the people of California are so stupid that they will probably reward this idiot with another term in office.

I'm obviously not in favor of this lawsuit as you can tell by my posts, but at least teh people of california weren't stupid enough to vote for the stupidest moron ever to grace the Oval Office.

Ahh.. duh... food on your family... duh.. evil doers smoke out of the freedom hole march.. duh... Is our children educated.. duh... Fool me once shme on fooling me again.. duh...

Fuckin retard. You're doing a heck of a job Brownie... duhhhhhhh..

Harriet Miers. She is good. She is good on court. duh.... She is good judge, duhhhh

What an incredible waste of taxpayer money. This AG should be thrown out in the next election. The problem is that the people of California are so stupid that they will probably reward this idiot with another term in office.

And I'm sure the Governator has a part of this as well. If he wasn't he'd have squashed the AG before this got out. This has to rank among the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. But it is the American way, sue your mother for the mental trauma you received from being born. You never know, juries are often really stupid.

And I'm sure the Governator has a part of this as well. If he wasn't he'd have squashed the AG before this got out. This has to rank among the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. But it is the American way, sue your mother for the mental trauma you received from being born. You never know, juries are often really stupid.

No, in CA our Governor has no say in it. Our AG is elected, and also happens to be from the ooposite party, and our governor has no say in what he does or does not prosecute.

It is not government's responsibility alone to tackle these problems ... it is everyone's, including industry. Government inaction on the issue does not let industry off the hook. Especially since industry was actively undermining efforts by governments to tackle the problem. California did not rip up the tram tracks ... GM and their cohorts did it after they had bought up the transportation companies. Exxon has consistently opposed efforts to tackle climate change. All of these companies are responsible, and must bear their share of the cost to fix the problem.

It was the government that created our car culture! Politicians caved in to the demands of companies like GM and Standard Oil and ripped out our public transportation and walkable communities in favor of multilane freeways and suburban sprawl. The public transportation was destroyed because politicians listened to GM (and many of their constituents of the time, since cars and plastics were the future) and ripped the systems out.

If they hadn't caved to political pressure and resisted these pressures, America might be a lot different today than it is now. GM and Ford have been in decline at least since the first oil embargo and it's been clear for a long time that cars are not good for our environment or our wellbeing.

The only people to blame are the politicians and the people who voted for their policies. People knew that these changes were occuring, and they were willing accomplices as they barreled down the new highways in Continentals that got 12 miles to the $0.31 gallon. All GM and the oil companies have done is met the demand of their customers and pressured politicians in to going along with the course of action that the

No, in CA our Governor has no say in it. Our AG is elected, and also happens to be from the ooposite party, and our governor has no say in what he does or does not prosecute.

*raises eyebrows*

That seems pretty stupid, that the governor of the state cannot tell the AG what to do.

*raises eyebrows*

That seems pretty stupid, that the governor of the state cannot tell the AG what to do.

He can suggest a lawsuit and influence him politically, but the cheif prosecuter files lawsuits and prosecutes what he sees fit, ultimately. He's an elected official. He's not appointed or even nominated by the governor. Besides, what if the govrnor commits a crime against the state? You wouldn't want a cheif prosecutor that was beholden to the governor then, would you?

He can suggest a lawsuit and influence him politically, but the cheif prosecuter files lawsuits and prosecutes what he sees fit, ultimately. He's an elected official. He's not appointed or even nominated by the governor. Besides, what if the govrnor commits a crime against the state? You wouldn't want a cheif prosecutor that was beholden to the governor then, would you?

That would bring in a special prosecutor. Note the Clinton fiasco. The same could work if a governor is suspected of illegal acts.

That would bring in a special prosecutor. Note the Clinton fiasco. The same could work if a governor is suspected of illegal acts.

But at the Fed level the AG is appointed by the president. Anyways, seems to work fine.

That would bring in a special prosecutor. Note the Clinton fiasco. The same could work if a governor is suspected of illegal acts.

Not really. Kentucky operates on the same system, and our AG had to be the one to open the case against the governor's administration for favoritism in hiring practices. Indictments have been delivered to quite a few members of the governor's cabinet and, while the AG hasn't indicted the governor himself, he has the power to do so. Naturally, the governor hasn't helped his defense by pardoning quite a few of his indicted staff and accusing the AG of partisan politics.

What an incredible waste of taxpayer money. This AG should be thrown out in the next election. The problem is that the people of California are so stupid that they will probably reward this idiot with another term in office.

Yes, and the people of Georgia fuck pigs and their sisters regularly, and still have slaves.

Yes, and the people of Georgia fuck pigs and their sisters regularly, and still have slaves.

I was talking to this guy from Georgia yesterday and he was commenting on the weather out here. He said it was actually hotter here than in Georgia but that Georgia had more humidity. Then his wife said, "Bahhhhh, mbaaaaaahhhh." I told him I hadn't ever been to Georgia and he said I should see it sometime as he fed his wife from one of those big milk bottles with the giant rubber nipples. She started eating an old shoe that was left on the ground by some homeless guy and at that point I had to go back to work. People from Georgia are very nice, though. :)

California has actually passed laws and requirements in the past of the auto manufacturers to push them to sell better emiting cars including at one point requiring a certain percentage to be zero emmissions and they have more or less just ignored or circumvented it.

I won't say that this isn't a political manuver, but at the same time it's not really out of nowhere. If California can't get them to comply, then the next avenue is aparently this lawsuit. Not that I think it will work, it just doesn't come out of left field.

Doesn't anyone think it's a little hypocritical of Ahnold "I owned 6 Hummers" Schwartzenegger to be running around making personal appearances talking about how this is necessary? ;)

I won't say that this isn't a political manuver, but at the same time it's not really out of nowhere. If California can't get them to comply, then the next avenue is aparently this lawsuit. Not that I think it will work, it just doesn't come out of left field.

That's true, but the lawsuit isn't really about that. If they were suing for that it would be a totally different story; in this case, they're suing the automakers for causing something that they didn't try to stop in the first place, i.e. the "McDonald's making people fat" lawsuit.

That's true, but the lawsuit isn't really about that. If they were suing for that it would be a totally different story; in this case, they're suing the automakers for causing something that they didn't try to stop in the first place, i.e. the "McDonald's making people fat" lawsuit.

Well, except that California did try and get auto manufacturers to cut down and they didn't.

The US state of California is suing six
of the world's biggest car makers over
greenhouse gas emissions.

California's Attorney General Bill
Lockyer said he would be seeking
millions of dollars in compensation for
the impact cars have on the state's
resources, infrastructure and
environment.

The six named in the lawsuit are
General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler,
Honda & Nissan. The car industry has
described the move as silly season
politics and an attempt to grab
headlines before the US mid-term
elections.


Is there really such a thing as silly season in the US. Isn't suing the companies for selling something legal just wasting more money and state resources.Besides surely pollution dosn't respect state boarders.

nothing to see here..lol...it's like an accident the cops shoo you away from...what rich people want,they will get.

whats next...suing individuals for polluting the air for buying said legal product?

the dems could tax it i bet!

The US state of California is suing six
of the world's biggest car makers over
greenhouse gas emissions.

California's Attorney General Bill
Lockyer said he would be seeking
millions of dollars in compensation for
the impact cars have on the state's
resources, infrastructure and
environment.

The six named in the lawsuit are
General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler,
Honda & Nissan. The car industry has
described the move as silly season
politics and an attempt to grab
headlines before the US mid-term
elections.


Is there really such a thing as silly season in the US. Isn't suing the companies for selling something legal just wasting more money and state resources.Besides surely pollution dosn't respect state boarders.

nothing to see here..lol...it's like an accident the cops shoo you away from...what rich people want,they will get.

whats next...suing individuals for polluting the air for buying said legal product?

the dems could tax it i bet!

nothing like a sin tax to make everyone feel good!

but at least teh people of california weren't stupid enough to vote for the stupidest moron ever to grace the Oval Office.
Actually, all 13 of California's electoral college votes went to Warren G. Harding in the 1920 election (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1917_1921.html#1920).
:D

Just one question: how did this lawyer get to court?

Well, except that California did try and get auto manufacturers to cut down and they didn't.

Erm, I would think that they must have. California has more people and more cars running around than it did in the 60's and 70's, but it has less smog and better general air quality.

Am I the only one here old enough and from California to remember Smog Alerts?

it's just a way to push off responsibilities of the .gov onto others

Actually, all 13 of California's electoral college votes went to Warren G. Harding in the 1920 election (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1917_1921.html#1920).
:D

Nice one. I don't think Harding actually campaigned, though, the RNC of the time made him stay home in Ohio and sent other people out to make speeches, so in a sense the Californians have an excuse.

Doesn't anyone think it's a little hypocritical of Ahnold "I owned 6 Hummers" Schwartzenegger to be running around making personal appearances talking about how this is necessary? ;)

Why is it, if anyone else changes their mind about something, it's okay. But if a politician does it, he or she is being a hypocrite?

Why is it, if anyone else changes their mind about something, it's okay. But if a politician does it, he or she is being a hypocrite?

Because hypocrisy can be used as a weapon, but changing your mind... not so much. It's all about smearing your opponent in the at-least-I'm-not-as-bad-as-that-guy era of politics.

I'm Pledgeria and I'm proud to have approved this message.

And I'm sure the Governator has a part of this as well. If he wasn't he'd have squashed the AG before this got out. This has to rank among the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. But it is the American way, sue your mother for the mental trauma you received from being born. You never know, juries are often really stupid.

You may be sure about the influence a governor has over an AG, but it's not always so. They're all independantly elected officials, so the chain of command is a little less than direct.

Yes, and the people of Georgia fuck pigs and their sisters regularly, and still have slaves.

Is this supposed to be clever?

At least the people of Georgia didn't elect and re-elect Gray Davis and then recall him and replace him with the Governator.

Is this supposed to be clever?

At least the people of Georgia didn't elect and re-elect Gray Davis and then recall him and replace him with the Governator.

Ergo all californians are idiots.

You are american, right? The whole Bush thing? I would hope you don't talk anymore, out of fear of sounding hypocritical.

Actually, all 13 of California's electoral college votes went to Warren G. Harding in the 1920 election (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1917_1921.html#1920).
:D

A genious compared to Bush. Also, harding always said he wsn't qualified and didn't want to run - thus the lack of a campaign. Bush is arrogant enough to not only run, but to believe he was placed in the office by God to destroy Amer... sorry, to destroy Saddam Hussein.

Ergo all californians are idiots.

You are american, right? The whole Bush thing? I would hope you don't talk anymore, out of fear of sounding hypocritical.

he thinks Bush is good. :( Sadly, four out of ten Americans still think Bush is good. :( I'm leaving.

Ergo all californians are idiots.

You are american, right? The whole Bush thing? I would hope you don't talk anymore, out of fear of sounding hypocritical.

Obviously the majority of voting Californians are not real bright. They're the same Californians that are going to reward the AG with another term in office.

Let me guess, you're Californian and proud of it.

Obviously the majority of voting Californians are not real bright. They're the same Californians that are going to reward the AG with another term in office.

Let me guess, you're Californian and proud of it.

Dude, proof is in the pudding. We didn't vote for Bush. That's enough. If you come from a state that went for Bush you come from a stupid state so you should shut your trap.

Dude, proof is in the pudding. We didn't vote for Bush. That's enough. If you come from a state that went for Bush you come from a stupid state so you should shut your trap.

Hit a nerve there, huh? You still have the legacy of Gray "Rolling Blackout" Davis that's a hard one to talk down. And then y'all re-elected the boob.

Hit a nerve there, huh? You still have the legacy of Gray "Rolling Blackout" Davis that's a hard one to talk down. And then y'all re-elected the boob.

I didn't vote for the guy. I vote Republican in most local and state elections so, no, you didn't hit a nerve. Buit since you mention it, the rolling blackouts weren't caused by Gray Davis, who wasn't around 40 years ago when CA's energy infrastructure was built. It was manufactured by Bush's long time good friend, the recently convicted and deceased Kenneth Layand his buddy Kurt Skilling from Enron.

THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM!!! BABOOM, BABOOM!:p

Hit a nerve there, huh? You still have the legacy of Gray "Rolling Blackout" Davis that's a hard one to talk down. And then y'all re-elected the boob.

And you re-elected Bush. You have no room to talk.

Is this supposed to be clever?

At least the people of Georgia didn't elect and re-elect Gray Davis and then recall him and replace him with the Governator.

I still think they should have elected the hooker.

And you re-elected Bush. You have no room to talk.

You've assumed that the 2004 election outcome was flawed. I'm quite happy that election turned out as it did. Every time he speaks, I get chills to think that John Kerry might have become President. Aiding that outcome would have been worse than electing and re-electing Mr. "No long term power contracts" Davis. Fortunately, the adults in the red states were able to prevail.

You've assumed that the 2004 election outcome was flawed. I'm quite happy that election turned out as it did. Every time he speaks, I get chills to think that John Kerry might have become President. Aiding that outcome would have been worse than electing and re-electing Mr. "No long term power contracts" Davis. Fortunately, the adults in the red states were able to prevail.

you know I broke out in hives during the fall of 2004, the thought of Kerry maybe winning made me physically ill.

I can't wait to see what ailment I get in 2008....

you know I broke out in hives during the fall of 2004, the thought of Kerry maybe winning made me physically ill.

I can't wait to see what ailment I get in 2008....

That was the one and only night that I cared enough about the election to stay up until the race was called.

It was the government that created our car culture! Politicians caved in to the demands of companies like GM and Standard Oil and ripped out our public transportation and walkable communities in favor of multilane freeways and suburban sprawl. The public transportation was destroyed because politicians listened to GM (and many of their constituents of the time, since cars and plastics were the future) and ripped the systems out.

Again, they did not cave into demand on this issue. The government sold them the public transportation companies under the understanding that they wanted to run them. And then the consortium ran them into the ground and tore up the tracks. Foolish on the part of the government? Maybe. Does it absolve the corporations involved? No.


If they hadn't caved to political pressure and resisted these pressures, America might be a lot different today than it is now.


Agreed. Truman gave into the policy of "interstate socialism" (i.e. extensive freeway building payed for by the government, but which was essentially a massive subsidy for car companies) because of the combined pressure of the auto manufacturers and the military. Again, however, the auto companies were directly responsible for pushing for this policy change. The fact that someone else implemented it does not let them off the hook.


The only people to blame are the politicians and the people who voted for their policies. People knew that these changes were occuring, and they were willing accomplices as they barreled down the new highways in Continentals that got 12 miles to the $0.31 gallon. All GM and the oil companies have done is met the demand of their customers and pressured politicians in to going along with the course of action that the

The real costs of that lifestyle have only failry recently become completely apparent, and even then the auto companies and the oil companies have played an active role in downplaying the concerns. They continue to aggressively market gas-guzzlers. Some of them continue to deny either that global warming exists, that it is caused by humans, or that it is a problem.