Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
373,886
Messages
4,039,401
Members
109,153
Latest member
Neumann1363

How about our great President!!!

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
Why would any state have the authority to make unique requirements vs every other state? If every state tried that nonsense it would be utter chaos.
Just another example of why none of us take California seriously.
 

bholmlate

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,267
665
113
Reno, Nevada
And yet that is exactly the motive and battle to repeal Row vs. wade is all about. Repeal the Federal Law legalizing reproduction rights for women across the US and give the states the power to regulate it This is eaxclty what you are rallying against here Not hear to argue Row vs. wade with you Mafesto. We have long since established our difference in opinion on that. You "the collective you" can't preach you are against big government and the turn around rally for it on issues that only benefit one side. In this case that would be the side of Big Business (auto manufactures) at that cost of the well being of the public. we are a collective unit called the United States.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
The folly in that analogy is that my stance is not about a mother's right to kill a baby, it's about the baby having the right to not be killed.

Other than that you are correct....it's exactly the same thing as California emissions laws. :unsure:
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
So you FOR and AGAINST BIG Government. Great stance you can never be wrong in arguments for BIG Goverment or against BIG Government.
Well, call me crazy, but I consider kiillin a baby just wrong. I don't think any of us need to quote a state or federal law to make that point.

I'm still a little confused about how you are trying to tie this in with emissions?
 

bholmlate

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,267
665
113
Reno, Nevada
I am not. You keep bringing it up because you can't justify your position, which is clearly playing both sides of the argument Read my response. I said our difference of opinion on that subject of women's reproductive rights has long since been settled. I simply used it to illustrate the fact that the main directive of the Republican Platform is for smaller Federal Government and to give power back to the states to regulate themselves. YET here, with the emission intuitive that California is trying to pass, that ideal of states having power for the purposes of having a smaller Federal Government clearly in not the case. I am done talking in circles with you. States regulating themselves = small Federal Government. Federal Government telling states what they can and can't do = BIG Federal Government. Chose one you can have both. the end
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
You are totally failing to understand that there must be uniformity among states on many laws.
For instance we (SD) were coerced into raising our drinking age in the mid 80's. The US government would have withheld federal highway funds had we not. So I understand and admire your position, I just happen to disagree with it.
However, 20 plus other states have joined Cali and are suing our great President Trump over this as well, so this could go either way?
 
Last edited:

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
You keep bringing it up because you can't justify your position, which is clearly playing both sides of the argument.
States regulating themselves = small Federal Government. Federal Government telling states what they can and can't do = BIG Federal Government. Chose one you can have both. the end
You seem to believe that someone who has a conservative stance on a certain position must always take what you perceive to be the conservative position on all issues moving forward.
What is wrong with analyzing aspects of each issue and making up our own minds instead of falling into your pre-conceived stereotypes?
 

Big10inch

Well-known member
Mar 11, 2018
832
809
93
I think Cali should be able to have any emissions standards it wants. If that is how that states populace wants to go, fine, show us how it is done! The consequence of this action very well may severely limit vehicle choices and will cause prices to rise substantially. To service a small market like that with specific vehicles will be expensive. I say let them try it BUT, no liberal lawsuits to make pricing fair, not lawsuits protesting lack of choice for Cali compliant vehicles, you simply get what the market will bare. YES, keep the feds out of it, on BOTH ends and let us watch the Cali experiement. LET IT FAIL.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
We are actually very clean & environmentally friendly, & I will admit it was REASONABLE emission laws enacted in the 70's that got us back to where we are. I think sticking with those standards is financially & environmentally reasonable.
 

Big10inch

Well-known member
Mar 11, 2018
832
809
93
Technology has come so far since the 70's. Today we have more power, less emissions and better economy in every segment. Having minimum standards HAS helped drive this trend, and we are better for it. Now maybe if the standards were agreed upon by both the automakers and the govt they would be more reasonable and continue to move in a positive direction. Instead we have zealots with bad information pressuring political officials willing to be bribed who legislate bad policy the rest of us have to live with.

I would really love to see Cali do it, all by themselves and see how it works. It wouldn't take long to see the dismal failure of these types of environmental policies... again. No more govt money for electric cars either. Pisses me off to see $100k+ electric cars being driven by millionaires, subsidized by those who can't afford such a car.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
But this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with most of us, myself included.
We seem far more content to argue about what we disagree on than bond over what we agree on.
One of the moderators awhile back point blank said "I am not your friend" because of a thread that I started. That's F-ed up.
I'd ride with any of you & would enjoy the political back n forth at the bar afterwards.
None of this needs to be taken personal.
But if we can't get along, how can we expect out politicians to work together?
Abe Lincoln (or one of those old goofballs) said that if the US ever falls it will be from within. It appears that we may be within a generation of proving him correct.
 

turboless terry

Well-known member
Premium Member
Jan 15, 2008
3,173
2,183
113
Big Timber, MT
Oil and water do not mix. I hang out with people that have similar values and beliefs. Why would you hang out with a junkie when your not a junkie? I can talk to them or argue over differences but I am not going to surround myself with things I don't believe in. Life is too short.
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
Oil and water do not mix. I hang out with people that have similar values and beliefs. Why would you hang out with a junkie when your not a junkie? I can talk to them or argue over differences but I am not going to surround myself with things I don't believe in. Life is too short.
But until I know different, I'm gonna assume that all of you here are good people. And rarely is it easy enough to deem someone good or bad. It's never that black & white. Heck, I've got some great qualities & yet sometimes I don't like myself. Lotta gray area to maneuver in life.
 
Last edited:

bholmlate

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,267
665
113
Reno, Nevada
It appears That "The Donald" finally has done something that the Black muslim president will never be able to do and was unable to accomplish it in his 8 year run. That is of course having a formal Impeachment inquirey launched against him. Be proud of that Donald. You Did it!!! You are not in a elite group that includes only 3 other presidents of this Country's history Johnson, Clinton, & and now The "Donald" can be added tot he list. Whether or not anything comes of it we will have to wait and see. After all the Attourny General of the US has proven he is willing to tarnish his own reputation to serve this great president. The optics are not very good on this one. How do i know? FOX/brietbart News has launched a full frontal attach regarding this issue proves that. The major problem i see is getting his personal attorney involved in deplomatic affairs of the United States. Someone who has no ties to this government of our's. But again the Attorney General will go to bat and clear this whole thing up in a matter of minutes. I will be right back getting some popcorn so i can watch how this ends
 

Skidoox

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Sep 4, 2001
1,974
974
113
Provo, UT
The announcement “was basically a press event with little or no practical or legal significance,” said Ross Garber, a lawyer in Washington who specializes in impeachment proceedings.
“The House has not passed a resolution,” Garber said. “No new powers were conferred on any committee. No new resources were allocated.”
 

Mafesto

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
9,825
5,591
113
Northeast SD
It appears That "The Donald" finally has done something that the Black muslim president will never be able to do and was unable to accomplish it in his 8 year run. That is of course having a formal Impeachment inquirey launched against him. Be proud of that Donald. You Did it!!! You are not in a elite group that includes only 3 other presidents of this Country's history Johnson, Clinton, & and now The "Donald" can be added tot he list. Whether or not anything comes of it we will have to wait and see. After all the Attourny General of the US has proven he is willing to tarnish his own reputation to serve this great president. The optics are not very good on this one. How do i know? FOX/brietbart News has launched a full frontal attach regarding this issue proves that. The major problem i see is getting his personal attorney involved in deplomatic affairs of the United States. Someone who has no ties to this government of our's. But again the Attorney General will go to bat and clear this whole thing up in a matter of minutes. I will be right back getting some popcorn so i can watch how this ends
I wouldn't be so eager to play all my chips on this hand if I were you.