Atty Gen. Bill Lockyer decides to throw taxypayers money down the toilet

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-20T193545Z_01_N20199499_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-AUTOS.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-newsOne-2

He's apparently running for election to be State Treasurer . guess he doesnt want to win, actually.

this is th e most ridiculous thing i have ever heard of ( well almost). if a judge actually lets this get to some kind of trial i will volunteer my time to help punch holes in his arguements. it will be ridiculously easy.

worst part really is that he could end up spending HUGE amounts of money if he is dogged about this with absolutely no chance in hell of EVER seeing any return at all.

That guy should be sued by the people of CA for Fraud, Waste and Abuse. :( What an idiot. (sigh).

What an idiot. Next it will be the dairies being sued for the same thing because of cow flatulence...

I believe its in England (correct me if I'm wrong fellow Englanders lol) but if you file suit against someone and lose, you have to pay their court and lawyer fee's. Wish we had that law in the US. I'd tell the Automakers to find the most expensive lawyers that charge by the second and hire them. Would put the CA people in a uproar fast.

I just dont understand if CA is so forward with curbing emissions and such, why they dont come up with their own solutions. I dont live in CA so I can't say for sure but why not sponsor their own bussing company that has a variety of stops. Hand out tax breaks to those companies that are actualy developing and producing "engery saving" cars. Hell I know they should start their own auto company and let them develop their own cars and let them see how easy it aparently is do develop and then sell these cars.

Is it wrong I wouldnt mind bitch slapping this AG?

I was imagining a scenario where the automakers retaliate by not selling cars in California. :cwm27:

the govenor should terminate this guy if he is able. does the GOV of california have the authority to kick the AG to the curb?


^
|

This belongs here - not in the thread about the Citroen :)

I was imagining a scenario where the automakers retaliate by not selling cars in California. :cwm27:
If the State of CA wasnt so big I wouldnt blame them. If CA was the size of RI you know the automakers would say "Go screw you then..." sure it would put alot out of work but 'eh the backlash from the public would be enough to have the government repeal their descions.

Though would be interesting if the Automakers said "fine.." then just sold baseline v4 models to the public in CA and when any buyer asks "What about the Hemi/LS/SE model..." the dealer will replie "Oh we dont sell those here in CA because of emmission laws these are the only models that pass this states standards.". That would to me create a small backlash dont ya think!?

maybe that idiot should take a look at industry emmisions in the united states and not automobiles.

It is cheaper for a lot of companies to pay the EPA fines for polluting than to actually implement polution controls so that is what they do. How about if you dont comply in X amount of time you get shut down? Oh that wouldnt work out so well because then the EPA wouldnt get those great legal kickbacks they are getting now in the form of "fines"

Who else has heard the phrase "The EPA works Monday - Friday and industry works on the weekends"?

I know it's a stupid thing but this is California we are talking about. That's to be expected. Most of the stupid ideas in this country originate over there. They just leach into the system which is the rest of the country a little later on. It's funny how CARB sets the standards for pollution for car emissions which the manufacturers must meet and then they go back and sue the car makers for meeting them!

But why sue CAR MAKERS...That's like suing GUN makers. If he wants to SUE somebody, sue the millions of car DRIVERS, as the cars themselves don't pollute - the DRIVER's who run the engines pollute.

But why sue CAR MAKERS...That's like suing GUN makers. If he wants to SUE somebody, sue the millions of car DRIVERS, as the cars themselves don't pollute - the DRIVER's who run the engines pollute.


I hope this is perfectly clear how i get this across....


This is a DUMB argument, which i know was your entire intention but it is no dumber than suing the automakers to begin with. :kiss:

Wait can I sue for air polution if someone coughs! haha dumbass!

I hope this is perfectly clear how i get this across....


This is a DUMB argument, which i know was your entire intention but it is no dumber than suing the automakers to begin with. :kiss:


I'm saying following the lawsuit to the 'logical conclusion' the people of CA 'should' be sued, too. Right.


It's bullshit and a waste of CA tax dollars. :(

I know it's a stupid thing but this is California we are talking about. That's to be expected. Most of the stupid ideas in this country originate over there. They just leach into the system which is the rest of the country a little later on. It's funny how CARB sets the standards for pollution for car emissions which the manufacturers must meet and then they go back and sue the car makers for meeting them!

This is how I think about it as well. California emissions standards (which are laws) have had the auto manufacturers bending over backward for years. Not to mention the oil refineries. Everyone has met their legal obligations to sell cars in California. It sounds like to me Cali's standard were wrong.

I live in Cali and it is things like this that make me consider leaving this state. I am absolutely outraged as a tax payer by this and many other issues. Damn tree-hugging-fern-fondling-bastards!!!

I assure you this guy will never get my vote. I am tired of Cali laws pandering to the green extreme and killing the business climate of this state.

I don't a problem with "green" legislations, but I do have a big problem with dumb lawsuits.

Heck, Cali can't even get 93 octane because of enviro regs. Drives the STi guys NUTS.

Though would be interesting if the Automakers said "fine.." then just sold baseline v4 models to the public in CA and when any buyer asks "What about the Hemi/LS/SE model..." the dealer will replie "Oh we dont sell those here in CA because of emmission laws these are the only models that pass this states standards.". That would to me create a small backlash dont ya think!?

Indeed it would.

^
|

This belongs here - not in the thread about the Citroen :)

doh!!

thanks, i was in a hurry trying to get over to the port before rush hour started

this is th e most ridiculous thing i have ever heard of ( well almost). if a judge actually lets this get to some kind of trial i will volunteer my time to help punch holes in his arguements. it will be ridiculously easy.

What you mean like:

"EXHIBIT A: Brand new 2006 Dodge Viper with gas tank empty hooked up to emissions sniffer- note zero emissions

EXHIBIT B: Stupid Californian attorney general pouring one gallon gas can into said Viper and turning the key- emissions sniffer explodes

Suing Toyota for making cars that pollute the enviroment is like suing Smith and Wesson for making guns that kill people. They don't pollute the enviroment until a Californian citizen puts gas in it and drives it. So who should be on trial, the manufacturers or the owners?"

All the forums I've been reading that have brought this subject up keep predicting that it will be settled in monetary value outside the courtroom. That actually baffles me, because I don't think any pasty-faced attourney right out of law school would have any problem getting this case laughed right out of the courtroom.

What you mean like:

"EXHIBIT A: Brand new 2006 Dodge Viper with gas tank empty hooked up to emissions sniffer- note zero emissions

EXHIBIT B: Stupid Californian attorney general pouring one gallon gas can into said Viper and turning the key- emissions sniffer explodes

Suing Toyota for making cars that pollute the enviroment is like suing Smith and Wesson for making guns that kill people. They don't pollute the enviroment until a Californian citizen puts gas in it and drives it. So who should be on trial, the manufacturers or the owners?"

All the forums I've been reading that have brought this subject up keep predicting that it will be settled in monetary value outside the courtroom. That actually baffles me, because I don't think any pasty-faced attourney right out of law school would have any problem getting this case laughed right out of the courtroom.



Yes but auto makers dont want to take the chance of going to court and by some joke of a legal system....losing. Not to mention all the bad press that the whole thing causes. They usually just want it to go away. Its lame but thats the way it is.

I seem to recall that there is a fire in LA burning over 100 square miles and releasing carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrates, nitrites, etc. etc. and they are worried about cars which are passing emission standards????

Heck, I just had my little red 1993 Mazda 323 tested and after more than a dozen years of hard driving, and a good tuneup it passes the smog test with flying colors! I vote that all participants in this frivolous law suit be confined to driving bicycles and battery operated Golf Carts for the rest of their days!

Maybe the carmakers could counter-sue California, for passing zoning laws, building codes, etc. that make car-centric sprawl development patterns pretty much mandatory for the last five decades.

If they really wanted to cut emmisions they would put an Emsisions tax and an addtional tax on SUV's and BMW's.

Let's start with 10k per SUV.

We had that a few years ago in 1995. It was called a luxury tax.

That's what killed the RX7 and Mitsu 3000 GT.

Say what you will about California, but I think at least it's a state that's using its political muscle to try to make a change in the right direction. Increasingly, corporations are going to have to be held accountable for the damages they wreak on the environment (which has direct effects on people's health).

Sure, in the case of automobiles, consumers make their own decisions, but don't you think the SUV craze was entirely created and fed by the manufacturers. Large corporations will try to get away with anything they can if it raises profits. I don't want to rant on about it, just watch the documentary The Corporation. If there had be no government regulation of corporations since the Industrial Revolution, I doubt that today's environment would be liveable.

While you're at it, watch Soylent Green. It's people!!!!!!!

If they really want to cut emissions they would discourage people from owning cars that are more than 5-10 years old.

Their restrictions on coal power plants and banning nuclear are... interesting. They are also requiring consumer electronics makers to reduce the "standby" as well as general power consumption... including cell phone chargers. At least they are thinking beyond just cars = evil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/us/15energy.html

But in the end... even if all new homes get solar panels and sell power back to the grid like they are pushing for... the price paid by the average person is likely going to go up. Either in energy costs, prices for housing or prices for devices. And no matter how big and bad California thinks it is... it's only a drop in the bucket... for even just the US, much less the rest of the world. Taking the lead is fine... but only if you can get others to follow you. After how many decades has other states finally signed on to CARB standards... and how many states is it? yeah... that's what I thought...

The auto makers need to just get together and tell California that they will immediately cease all car sales in that state. That way they aren't contributing to their air pollution problems. Then they should only make 45 state legal cars so they can't sell the ones they do produce there. Sure it would also affect New York and a few other states but that should teach them to stop bitching about companies that meet their own standards. They need to do this now but unfortunately they don't have the intelligence or the balls to. I would have nothing but respect for any company if they actually made this happen.

While we're at it, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona all need to sue California for letting their air cross over state lines to pollute their states!

Let's have more fun. If auto makers don't have the balls to completely cease sales, they need to sell them in the same way many aftermarket parts are sold. In other words "not legal for use on public roads" or "for off road use only". Now you can't complain about the auto makers. You fine the people that actually start up the machines and pollute the air. Of course that would also include the State Attorney General as well since he too drives a car and pollutes! "Say what you will about California..." I will and I proudly do everyday! That's a messed up place full of people who are illogical and who are not right in the head. Automakers need to band together and teach them a lesson and it's something they could very easily do. California needs to get off of it's pedestal.

The auto makers need to just get together and tell California that they will immediately cease all car sales in that state.
haha, that will never happen.

That's a messed up place full of people who are illogical and who are not right in the head.
whats your basis? sounds like a good old redneck texan hootin an hollerin an firin off his six-shooter to me. yea, sounds like an assanine stereotype :sweatdrop

Yes but auto makers dont want to take the chance of going to court and by some joke of a legal system....losing. Not to mention all the bad press that the whole thing causes. They usually just want it to go away. Its lame but thats the way it is.

no way in hell any automaker settles this. also no way in hell any automaker will let it get to court. just the pre-trial motions could take so long and cost so much that you could bankrupt the calfornia government.

my first thought about this was they will try to use the "tobacco suit/settlement" angle. he's hoping that that model will work. and this morning on th elocal radio i heard them make that exact comparison WHICH IS LAUGHABLE at best. the dj guy even said " sure they know what they're doing JUST LIKE those tobacco companies."

ridiculous.

understand this is what they will have to prove in court(and just what this AG is hoping for the chance to improve his image by argueing this)

he will have to PROVE in a court of law that there IS global warming. He will spend 10 years just trying to do that and not succeed
he will have to PROVE in a court of law that this change IS HARMING or WILL HARM
his state. he'll never get to this point
He will have to PROVE the expense of those damages. im sure he'll have some experts willing to name a dollar amount(which will be how much they would charge to "fix" the damage or at least study a fix)
He will have to PROVE the autos contribute to that change AND how much the contribution to that change is. which will just prove there are others that contribute way more
He will have to prove the automakers are somehow LIABLE for this when they have been following the Federal and STATE regulations regarding those emissions(and in many cases EXCEEDING those regs). which while doing so he will just prove that there are others way more culpable- like the state of california for building the roadways and allowing this to occur. not just allowing it but ENCOURAGING it.

he said himself he's looking for hundreds of millions in damages. so he'll spend a couple billion trying to get a what? 500 million?

ridiculous

whats your basis?

this lawsuit, for starters.

he will have to PROVE in a court of law that there IS global warming. He will spend 10 years just trying to do that and not succeed
he will have to PROVE in a court of law that this change IS HARMING or WILL HARM
his state. he'll never get to this point
He will have to PROVE the expense of those damages. im sure he'll have some experts willing to name a dollar amount(which will be how much they would charge to "fix" the damage or at least study a fix)
He will have to PROVE the autos contribute to that change AND how much the contribution to that change is. which will just prove there are others that contribute way more
He will have to prove the automakers are somehow LIABLE for this when they have been following the Federal and STATE regulations regarding those emissions(and in many cases EXCEEDING those regs). which while doing so he will just prove that there are others way more culpable- like the state of california for building the roadways and allowing this to occur. not just allowing it but ENCOURAGING it.

ridiculous

well said. i simply dont believe this is going anywhere.

If they(government of the state of California)wish to cut emissions all they need to do is increase the tax on gasoline and diesel fuels,say $2 a gallon.

I have been a Cali resident for roughly half my life or ~16 years. I have seen more stupid legislation and ultra-liberal BS come out of our government then I wish to admit too.

1. This lawsuit is asinine.

2. If Cali really cared about reduced emission then don't you think they would try to get people off their car dependencies? Reducing emissions will only go so far what they need to do is get cars off the road. This state has non-existent public transportation.

3. You see great legislation about various public service people getting insane pension retirement benefits (thanks Gray Davis).

4. Workman’s Comp. that does not require satisfactory medical examinations and recommendations cost business untold millions. (Thanks again Davis)

5. Bills to dump more and more money into schools but due to legislative overhead $$/child continues to decrease.

6. Billions lost to illegal immigrants and the public services we provide them.

7. Unnecessary gun bans. Banning guns that are never even used in crimes. This does not make anyone safer. It just reduces liberties. And for the record I am not even a gun fan.

We can go on and on. Is California progressive and setting precedence? Yes. Do a lot of other states try to follow suit? Yes. Do we need some sanity in government and our ultra-liberal ways? YES.

Let's not even start debating Global Warming. They still can't prove this exists, but all you ever hear about is that it does. Many, many respectable (even more respectable than the ones you here in Gore's camp) do not believe humans have impact on Global Warming and some don't even believe in Globla warming period. The masses are too brainwashed to even discuss this topic subjectively.

If they(government of the state of California)wish to cut emissions all they need to do is increase the tax on gasoline and diesel fuels,say $2 a gallon.

They need to provide and incentive and method to get around without autos. Increasing the tax will only make it harder to live in Cali. You cannot live in Cali without a car PERIOD. It is a necesity not a option. They have reduced emissions to the point they cannot go much lower so they either need to go all electric and/or reduce the # of cars. And hybrids are not the answer.

Zoom, I'm guessing the CA state attorneys office does not have an Omsbudsman? Still, if he's trying to get elected to something he's just doing something sleazy that many lawyer-politicians do, which is file a case that defines your stance on an issue as a form of "public statement." This also means it has no teeth and was never meant to go anywhere to start with.

Oh, and I'm related to lawyers so lets please not follow this comment up w/ any overarching lawyer bashing, it sounds just as assinine as stereotyping CA or TX.

Also, for those of you that don't know this CA has special dispensation on emmision laws that was granted by the federal government because back in the 70's b/c CA beat the feds to the first emmisions regs, and in the tangle that insued CA came out w/ the ability to create their own laws that superceded federal law. No other state has this ability but they can follow suit once CA has done it, thus the follow the leader situation. That and CA has 20% of the US population.

I might have gotten some of that a little bit off if someone remembers that better please correct me.

RX-A-Ho

I am a climate scientist. I will tell you all you ever need to know about Global Warming and prove that it exists w/ no political spin whatsoever. Just ask nicely.

Still, if he's trying to get elected to something he's just doing something sleazy that many lawyer-politicians do, which is file a case that defines your stance on an issue as a form of "public statement." This also means it has no teeth and was never meant to go anywhere to start with.


i think that is it exactly.

I would like to hear to be honest. I am an engineer myself and appreciate facts and arguments supported by them. I hate the supposed evidence, or lack, provided by the media. And shoot from the hip correlations and interpretations. No matter the stance.

To me global warming has become a lot like the second hand smoke fiasco. If you read the actual report from the EPA and dig into the data you find something completely different from what the media/politicians/actors tell you. You find there is insignificant statistical evidence that second hand smoke has any harmful effects. This was even a ruling by a federal judge and the report was thrown out. But zealots got a hold of it and turned it into a circus. But I digress.

I would be more than happy to hear. I do not consider myself very knowledgeable on the subject which is one of the reasons I am skeptical of the people that yell the loudest.

The most important thing you can learn from a research study is who paid for it. Since you can usually prove or disprove anything.....the only thing that matters is who paid. Usually research studies are funded by someone that is going to make some money off the outcome......an outcome usually biased towards their business in some way.

Just PM'd you because of large length (took a while). You can post to community if you want. Here is picture that wouldn't attach to PM


http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=85644&stc=1

The auto makers need to just get together and tell California that they will immediately cease all car sales in that state. That way they aren't contributing to their air pollution problems. Then they should only make 45 state legal cars so they can't sell the ones they do produce there. Sure it would also affect New York and a few other states but that should teach them to stop bitching about companies that meet their own standards. They need to do this now but unfortunately they don't have the intelligence or the balls to. I would have nothing but respect for any company if they actually made this happen.

While we're at it, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona all need to sue California for letting their air cross over state lines to pollute their states!


RotaryGod you see my comment previously about the automakers just selling their base models in v4 form only in CA. If they dont have balls to just pull out of the state they might to just selling pure baseline models. :rock:

Though I like how everyone says "liberal" which is usualy tagged to Democrats yet ya have Republican poster non-girly man Arnold as Govenor, why hasnt he repealed those laws if Rep (mostly) dont like them. :Wconfused

Again if CA Government thinks the Automakers arnt doing enough intentionaly they should just create their own car company and sell the cars that "meet" their standards. And also yet again instead of suing them give the car companies incentives to meet these ultra low emissions.

Bah wish I lived in CA.. I'd find the AG and give him a switf kick in the nuts and call him a dumbass :rock:

RotaryGod you see my comment previously about the automakers just selling their base models in v4 form only in CA. If they dont have balls to just pull out of the state they might to just selling pure baseline models. :rock:

I don't think any production vehicles have V4 engines. I think GM experimented with a V4 back in the 70's......but typically 4-cylinders engines are I4 (In-line 4).

Arnold is on the liberal side of the Republican party. Many Replublicans don't like him either. Everyone knows that he won because he is a celebrity anyways. As I said earlier, with California it's all about image.

is california atorney general Hugo Chavez? :hahano:

Just PM'd you because of large length (took a while). You can post to community if you want. Here is picture that wouldn't attach to PM


http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=85644&stc=1

Oh I'm sure you've heard of this but had to comment on in openly.
Some have speculated that our current warming is attributed to Earths natural cycle. Forget which discovery channel/history channel (not sure which) had a documentry on this but a scientist is researching this and has already noted a 10 year period that has been documented which seen world wide droughts due to excessive heat. Personaly I believe in it somewhat, I just think we've been excelerating the warming that naturaly occurs. Volcano's urupt all the time and in the past that has been the leading cause of heat waves in some areas as it keeps the head down to the ground. 'eh I'm bored right now lol

as I remember before every ice age theres a jump in temperature

volcanic activity is linked with COOLING periods not warming periods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

yes yes it wikipedia- but its currently the best and most thorough synapsis of the LIA

I don't think any production vehicles have V4 engines. I think GM experimented with a V4 back in the 70's......but typically 4-cylinders engines are I4 (In-line 4).

Whoops.. so used to the V yanno ><!
But you get my point though... for those cars with motor options just sell the baseline model thats all.

Clavius, Zoom44, you are both right. Volcanic eruptions can both cool and heat the atmosphere, it just depends at the duration of time you are looking at and the style of the eruption. Volcano is a catch-all term that encompasses many different eruptions that cause many different things. I can get more specific if you want. However, Zoom44 is right more of the time and the cooling effect is more noticeable on a human time scale.

Whoops.. so used to the V yanno ><!
But you get my point though... for those cars with motor options just sell the baseline model thats all.


I knew what you meant.....just thought I'd kick some knowledge. Not everyone knows everything about all engines like I do ;) j.k

oh, and screw the I4, punish them with the I3!!!!

oh, and screw the I4, punish them with the I3!!!!
Nah screw them even more and have CA be the first State to only sell Smart Cars :rofl: Imagine a drive by in Compton in that thing bwahahahaha...

And your right Zoom its mainly cooling but it does trap heat for awhile just like our good ole scientist here pointed out lol..

I'd like to offer some of my opinions on the global warming issue. I watch almost everything on Discovery Science, TLC and NG. From what I've read and watched it is a fact the planet has gone through periods of extreme climate change in it's lifetime. These changes often cause the extermination of most life on earth. Does this mean we humans have no impact on climate trends? I think we do. Global warming seems to be apart of the earths life cycle and is inevitable. However, IMO, human impact as well as non-terrestrial impact can have some effect on the timing of those cycles. It really comes down to whether you believe the earth requires a delicate balance for complex life to exist. If you believe in that balance then we should be mindful of our actions and the consequences. If you do not believe in a delicate balance then it does not matter what humans do. I for one think we can impact climate and are doing so right now. In the same breath I will tell you that climate change resulting in the extermination of most life is a part of the earths life cycle.....and is inevitable.

Nah screw them even more and have CA be the first State to only sell Smart Cars Imagine a drive by in Compton in that thing bwahahahaha...

then you'd have shows like "Pimp My Smartie" and "Overampin'" :rollingla

It's a PR stunt as much as anything and similar suits have already been thrown out. It never has to go to trial to accomplish the objectives:

PR for the Attorney General who is GOOD

Slinging mud at auto makers who are BAD



no way in hell any automaker settles this. also no way in hell any automaker will let it get to court. just the pre-trial motions could take so long and cost so much that you could bankrupt the calfornia government.

my first thought about this was they will try to use the "tobacco suit/settlement" angle. he's hoping that that model will work. and this morning on th elocal radio i heard them make that exact comparison WHICH IS LAUGHABLE at best. the dj guy even said " sure they know what they're doing JUST LIKE those tobacco companies."

ridiculous.

understand this is what they will have to prove in court(and just what this AG is hoping for the chance to improve his image by argueing this)

he will have to PROVE in a court of law that there IS global warming. He will spend 10 years just trying to do that and not succeed
he will have to PROVE in a court of law that this change IS HARMING or WILL HARM
his state. he'll never get to this point
He will have to PROVE the expense of those damages. im sure he'll have some experts willing to name a dollar amount(which will be how much they would charge to "fix" the damage or at least study a fix)
He will have to PROVE the autos contribute to that change AND how much the contribution to that change is. which will just prove there are others that contribute way more
He will have to prove the automakers are somehow LIABLE for this when they have been following the Federal and STATE regulations regarding those emissions(and in many cases EXCEEDING those regs). which while doing so he will just prove that there are others way more culpable- like the state of california for building the roadways and allowing this to occur. not just allowing it but ENCOURAGING it.

he said himself he's looking for hundreds of millions in damages. so he'll spend a couple billion trying to get a what? 500 million?

ridiculous

then you'd have shows like "Pimp My Smartie" and "Overampin'" :rollingla
bwahahhahahaha :yelrotflm
Saddest or hypocrital thing of all this is you just know the AG drives a SUV along with the rest of the CA Goverment.

One of the best moments was last year when price's really started to rise and get peoples attention was our Govenor Mitt Romney as he told reporters to conserve gas as best they can. A reporter asked "Then how come your surrounded by a fleet of SUV's that drive you everywhere..." Mitt stared blindly for a moment into the camera's then replied "Um well yeah.. well we are currently looking into more suitable sedans I assure you..." friggin' classic I tell ya!

I'm surprised that he didn't give the classic SUV driver's excuse of "they're safer".

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/09/21/AM200609215.html

Jody Freeman who heads Harvard's environmental law program says California may just pull it off.

JODY FREEMAN: Public nuisance suits are a very traditional mechanism for states to use to sue on behalf of their citizens when the public health has been compromised. It's not an entirely fanciful exercise.

harvard should fire her- she is obviously incompetent. no thats harsh- harvard should get her a vacation and some counciling- she's losing her mind

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/09/21/AM200609215.html



harvard should fire her- she is obviously incompetent. no thats harsh- harvard should get her a vacation and some counciling- she's losing her mind

She should not be fired since she is stating precedence. The judges and the politician should be fired for allowing this. If we started doing that she would be quoting different precedences.

i mean this part in particular

It's not an entirely fanciful exercise.

because it is.

but she is stating the wrong precedence in my mind. the AG is saying (well in the reports anyway, i have not yet read the full complaint) that the companies product has changed the enviroment causing the State to spend large sums of money to fix or prepare for the changes yet ahead. there is barely a mention of the impact to the health of the citizens

i mean this part in particular



because it is.

but she is stating the wrong precedence in my mind. the AG is saying (well in the reports anyway, i have not yet read the full complaint) that the companies product has changed the enviroment causing the State to spend large sums of money to fix or prepare for the changes yet ahead. there is barely a mention of the impact to the health of the citizens

Zoom can I sue Sony, Nintendo, and Xbox for making me lazy and hence gain some weight by playing their video game systems?!?!? I might contact my AG and see about a law suit :rock:

Zoom can I sue Sony, Nintendo, and Xbox for making me lazy and hence gain some weight by playing their video game systems?!?!? I might contact my AG and see about a law suit

Why not? people have sued mcdonalds for making them fat. There is a false conception that somehow corporations can coddle us into perfect health and happiness in this country, and if not they should PAY. Fortunately, just because a suit is FILED doesn't mean it is ADMITTED.

What an ass, I wonder why he didn't sue the car companies that rich people drive. Like ferrari, porsche etc. I'm sure they pollute more than toyotas.

I'd like to offer some of my opinions on the global warming issue. I watch almost everything on Discovery Science, TLC and NG. From what I've read and watched it is a fact the planet has gone through periods of extreme climate change in it's lifetime. These changes often cause the extermination of most life on earth. Does this mean we humans have no impact on climate trends? I think we do. Global warming seems to be apart of the earths life cycle and is inevitable. However, IMO, human impact as well as non-terrestrial impact can have some effect on the timing of those cycles. It really comes down to whether you believe the earth requires a delicate balance for complex life to exist. If you believe in that balance then we should be mindful of our actions and the consequences. If you do not believe in a delicate balance then it does not matter what humans do. I for one think we can impact climate and are doing so right now. In the same breath I will tell you that climate change resulting in the extermination of most life is a part of the earths life cycle.....and is inevitable.

Damn. Well put! That is about exactly what I have been thinking and couldn't figure out how to articulate.