|
CAFE is encouraging companies to think ahead and develop alternative energy or higher-mileage cars so America won't be stuck paying the OPEC nations 6 dollars a gallon for our 10-MPG Hummers in 10 years Logic has no part in these discussions.
Que up party talking points instead, please.
|
On July 14 2009 08:47 Grommit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 08:42 Aegraen wrote:On July 14 2009 08:33 Grommit wrote:On July 14 2009 08:13 Last Romantic wrote: CAFE is why I think GM is going to fail [again]. It encourages them to produce crappy cars that will not sell while also forcing them to invest millions in unnecessary remodelings to their most profitable cars (big showy Caddys, GMC trucks, stuff like that). You could actually argue that the CAFE standards were the government's way of trying to get the American auto industry back on track. The CAFE standards aimed to help improve fuel economy, which was actually a very good idea considering the tension between America and the oil-producing nations of the world today. Asian made cars such as Honda, Hyundai, etc. adapted to the market and were very successful. These companies are subject to the same penalties if their cars are sold in the United States, yet they don't pay any, while American companies pay huge sums in penalty fees. Now you're telling me that it's the government's fault that these companies couldn't adapt to the changing market and political landscape? You really think the Escalade and similar cars that are profitable now are going to be the American cars of the future? If you honestly think that, then you are right and the CAFE standards are out of place. The fact is, oil isn't going to be around forever, and America is not the country that controls it's production. In that sense, CAFE is encouraging companies to think ahead and develop alternative energy or higher-mileage cars so America won't be stuck paying the OPEC nations 6 dollars a gallon for our 10-MPG Hummers in 10 years Edit: I'm not saying that all government run programs and ideas are wonderful..in fact..most of them aren't...I was just trying to make a point that sometimes private industry can be just as stupid...kind of de-railed the thread =\ Increasing costs to produce cars mandated by a bloated government overstepping it's constitutional bounds, coupled with shitty cars = failed business. What happens? They don't let it fail! So, more of our money is thrown down the toilet and flushed away, and worse yet, 9 months into FY09 we're 1.1Trillion in the hole and expected to climb higher, and for FY10 expected to be even higher than 09. You know what you let happen to a business with a bad business model? You let them fail. Leaner, smarter, more financial capable businesses will popup in their place. Not only that, in order to comply with CAFE standards the car makers were forced to use lighterweight materials which in turn caused increased fatalities that otherwise would not have occurred. Oh yes, lovely government at work. Asian made cars are more successful because they are better built, PERIOD. As of last year, there were more than 239,000 American's employed by Detroit's "Big 3." Letting them go bankrupt and letting 239,000 people get laid off isn't necessarily a good idea either. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one 
So, you advocate turning GM, Chrysler, etc. into Amtrak? The whole debacle all ready turned off at least a good 15-20% of Americans from ever buying from them again (I know I have, and as my whole family of 20+).
You don't get it. You can't subsidize shit!
You do know, that better leaner more financially viable companies would fill the void. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be a hell of a lot better than throwing money away on a failed company. For 200+ years we've gotten through just fine and turned out the world's lone superpower, suddenly the last 200 years we're doing things wrong and we have to have all this "hope and change"?
Pffft.
|
I agree with both sides of that previous argument. Its gonna be hard to keep this sinking ship known as america above water for much longer....
|
On July 14 2009 08:54 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 08:47 Grommit wrote:On July 14 2009 08:42 Aegraen wrote:On July 14 2009 08:33 Grommit wrote:On July 14 2009 08:13 Last Romantic wrote: CAFE is why I think GM is going to fail [again]. It encourages them to produce crappy cars that will not sell while also forcing them to invest millions in unnecessary remodelings to their most profitable cars (big showy Caddys, GMC trucks, stuff like that). You could actually argue that the CAFE standards were the government's way of trying to get the American auto industry back on track. The CAFE standards aimed to help improve fuel economy, which was actually a very good idea considering the tension between America and the oil-producing nations of the world today. Asian made cars such as Honda, Hyundai, etc. adapted to the market and were very successful. These companies are subject to the same penalties if their cars are sold in the United States, yet they don't pay any, while American companies pay huge sums in penalty fees. Now you're telling me that it's the government's fault that these companies couldn't adapt to the changing market and political landscape? You really think the Escalade and similar cars that are profitable now are going to be the American cars of the future? If you honestly think that, then you are right and the CAFE standards are out of place. The fact is, oil isn't going to be around forever, and America is not the country that controls it's production. In that sense, CAFE is encouraging companies to think ahead and develop alternative energy or higher-mileage cars so America won't be stuck paying the OPEC nations 6 dollars a gallon for our 10-MPG Hummers in 10 years Edit: I'm not saying that all government run programs and ideas are wonderful..in fact..most of them aren't...I was just trying to make a point that sometimes private industry can be just as stupid...kind of de-railed the thread =\ Increasing costs to produce cars mandated by a bloated government overstepping it's constitutional bounds, coupled with shitty cars = failed business. What happens? They don't let it fail! So, more of our money is thrown down the toilet and flushed away, and worse yet, 9 months into FY09 we're 1.1Trillion in the hole and expected to climb higher, and for FY10 expected to be even higher than 09. You know what you let happen to a business with a bad business model? You let them fail. Leaner, smarter, more financial capable businesses will popup in their place. Not only that, in order to comply with CAFE standards the car makers were forced to use lighterweight materials which in turn caused increased fatalities that otherwise would not have occurred. Oh yes, lovely government at work. Asian made cars are more successful because they are better built, PERIOD. As of last year, there were more than 239,000 American's employed by Detroit's "Big 3." Letting them go bankrupt and letting 239,000 people get laid off isn't necessarily a good idea either. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one  So, you advocate turning GM, Chrysler, etc. into Amtrak? The whole debacle all ready turned off at least a good 15-20% of Americans from ever buying from them again (I know I have, and as my whole family of 20+). You don't get it. You can't subsidize shit! You do know, that better leaner more financially viable companies would fill the void. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be a hell of a lot better than throwing money away on a failed company. For 200+ years we've gotten through just fine and turned out the world's lone superpower, suddenly the last 200 years we're doing things wrong and we have to have all this "hope and change"? Pffft.
You are already assuming that the auto-industry bailout is going to fail and the companies are doomed. You aren't even giving it a chance. If in 5 or 10 years GM is still a terrible company, I will gladly concede. However, at least give it a chance to work before you start saying we "threw away money."
People are probably getting tired of us going back and forth..I'm gonna sit back and see if anyone else has any opinions about any of this.
|
lol at the topic change.
I reiterate that being fat isn't bad. How is it bad? Does it directly cause life-threatening illnesses? Not really, they just probably can't run a flight of stairs without huffing and puffing, but who can? Or is it because people don't look as attractive? Some people, no matter how hard they diet or exercise, can not look like Park Jung Suk. I know vegetarians that eat responsibly, but are considered overweight.You can even look at the blog section of this website for member pictures and you'll find overweight people who look pretty normal to me, you're tell them they're living unhealthy lives?
Obesity is another issue where it is life threatening and hinders a person's ability to live a normal life.
|
The main flaw with democracy is that It favors the short term over the long term. This is definitely a short term move to get short term voters before the American debt barge capsized in a rough sea.
|
On July 14 2009 07:17 Last Romantic wrote:So Obama's selected Dr. Regina Benjamin to be America's Doctor. She's done admirable work for the poor, and her efforts post-Katrina are commendable, but the S.G. is as much a figurehead as an actual health policy pusher. And honestly? An overweight person is to dictate to a morbidly obese nation on how to take care of itself? Hope and change grows curiouser and curiouser. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124749440449132729.html
Who said you had to follow your own good advice =p
|
On July 14 2009 09:02 Grommit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 08:54 Aegraen wrote:On July 14 2009 08:47 Grommit wrote:On July 14 2009 08:42 Aegraen wrote:On July 14 2009 08:33 Grommit wrote:On July 14 2009 08:13 Last Romantic wrote: CAFE is why I think GM is going to fail [again]. It encourages them to produce crappy cars that will not sell while also forcing them to invest millions in unnecessary remodelings to their most profitable cars (big showy Caddys, GMC trucks, stuff like that). You could actually argue that the CAFE standards were the government's way of trying to get the American auto industry back on track. The CAFE standards aimed to help improve fuel economy, which was actually a very good idea considering the tension between America and the oil-producing nations of the world today. Asian made cars such as Honda, Hyundai, etc. adapted to the market and were very successful. These companies are subject to the same penalties if their cars are sold in the United States, yet they don't pay any, while American companies pay huge sums in penalty fees. Now you're telling me that it's the government's fault that these companies couldn't adapt to the changing market and political landscape? You really think the Escalade and similar cars that are profitable now are going to be the American cars of the future? If you honestly think that, then you are right and the CAFE standards are out of place. The fact is, oil isn't going to be around forever, and America is not the country that controls it's production. In that sense, CAFE is encouraging companies to think ahead and develop alternative energy or higher-mileage cars so America won't be stuck paying the OPEC nations 6 dollars a gallon for our 10-MPG Hummers in 10 years Edit: I'm not saying that all government run programs and ideas are wonderful..in fact..most of them aren't...I was just trying to make a point that sometimes private industry can be just as stupid...kind of de-railed the thread =\ Increasing costs to produce cars mandated by a bloated government overstepping it's constitutional bounds, coupled with shitty cars = failed business. What happens? They don't let it fail! So, more of our money is thrown down the toilet and flushed away, and worse yet, 9 months into FY09 we're 1.1Trillion in the hole and expected to climb higher, and for FY10 expected to be even higher than 09. You know what you let happen to a business with a bad business model? You let them fail. Leaner, smarter, more financial capable businesses will popup in their place. Not only that, in order to comply with CAFE standards the car makers were forced to use lighterweight materials which in turn caused increased fatalities that otherwise would not have occurred. Oh yes, lovely government at work. Asian made cars are more successful because they are better built, PERIOD. As of last year, there were more than 239,000 American's employed by Detroit's "Big 3." Letting them go bankrupt and letting 239,000 people get laid off isn't necessarily a good idea either. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one  So, you advocate turning GM, Chrysler, etc. into Amtrak? The whole debacle all ready turned off at least a good 15-20% of Americans from ever buying from them again (I know I have, and as my whole family of 20+). You don't get it. You can't subsidize shit! You do know, that better leaner more financially viable companies would fill the void. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be a hell of a lot better than throwing money away on a failed company. For 200+ years we've gotten through just fine and turned out the world's lone superpower, suddenly the last 200 years we're doing things wrong and we have to have all this "hope and change"? Pffft. You are already assuming that the auto-industry bailout is going to fail and the companies are doomed. You aren't even giving it a chance. If in 5 or 10 years GM is still a terrible company, I will gladly concede. However, at least give it a chance to work before you start saying we "threw away money." People are probably getting tired of us going back and forth..I'm gonna sit back and see if anyone else has any opinions about any of this.
*raises hand timidly* Small companies get eaten by bigger companies when they appear. those "lean" companies will *sometimes* become part of the bigger company because they buy them out, can't compete,etc. Anyway, Ford's doing decently. And how 'bout them Mets?
|
On July 14 2009 09:08 broz0rs wrote: lol at the topic change.
I reiterate that being fat isn't bad. How is it bad? Does it directly cause life-threatening illnesses? Not really, they just probably can't run a flight of stairs without huffing and puffing, but who can? Or is it because people don't look as attractive? Some people, no matter how hard they diet or exercise, can not look like Park Jung Suk. I know vegetarians that eat responsibly, but are considered overweight.You can even look at the blog section of this website for member pictures and you'll find overweight people who look pretty normal to me, you're tell them they're living unhealthy lives?
Obesity is another issue where it is life threatening and hinders a person's ability to live a normal life.
Being overweight greatly increases your chances of heart disease and similar problems.
While there are extemely rare cases of truly not being able to control weight, everybody has the ability too -- it just may require more effort depending on who you are.
I don't think anyone here is dissing people who are a little overweight or even obese -- we don't care, and I don't judge people like that.
But it is unhealthy, and that's a fact. And it's funny seeing people in the medical field being unhealthy.
That's all the OP meant I believe.
|
On July 14 2009 09:08 broz0rs wrote: lol at the topic change.
I reiterate that being fat isn't bad. How is it bad? Does it directly cause life-threatening illnesses? Not really, they just probably can't run a flight of stairs without huffing and puffing, but who can? Or is it because people don't look as attractive? Some people, no matter how hard they diet or exercise, can not look like Park Jung Suk.
Being fat make anyone look worse, so if they're ugly to begin with then they're hideous, much like the new general surgeon.
I know vegetarians that eat responsibly, but are considered overweight. Complete horseshit.
|
I don't think having an obese woman as surgeon general is a good example. She's not mildy overweight either, she's clearly over BMI 30 which is the starting point for obesity.
|
a fatty is suppose to tell people how to be healthy? lol
|
On July 14 2009 10:14 Mastermind wrote: a fatty is suppose to tell people how to be healthy? lol
It works for Oprah
|
On July 14 2009 07:17 Last Romantic wrote: And honestly? An overweight person is to dictate to a morbidly obese nation on how to take care of itself?
Kind of how Buddha is 300+ lbs. teaching people about self-discipline? ^^ Ripped from Anger Management.
|
On July 14 2009 07:28 Aegraen wrote: Very. Anyways, this isn't the topic for such a discussion.
For all people still undecided on guaranteed minimum health care, now you know what Aegraen thinks. So now you know what position NOT to take.
Anyway, you didn't even answer his question. Even 'why not' would have been a better answer.
Big government in general is not a good idea. But if you are going to have one health care has to be high on the list of why you have a government in the first place. Otherwise, why even have a government?
US health system is like twice as expensive as the second most expensive and has the worst service/result in the western world. No, its so bad US is now no.72 of the world out of 191 countries. Third world countries perform better with only a fraction of the GDP percentage. Why? One thing is the fact people aren't cured when it costs society just a few dollars. And then they get seriously ill, cost society maybe up to hundred thousand dollars and then the person can't pay. It could all have been prevented. Also, US system is extremely bureaucratic. It's complex to go through all the causes and pin-point them exactly. But the statistics are clear.
Huge health care costs is one of the factors in GM et al going broke.
|
Before people utter anymore weight nonse understand that weight is LARGELY genetic. Adoptions studies have been done putting children from fat parents in the hands of skinny parents and children from skinny parents in the hands of fat parents. The environmental upbringing had almost no influence on the childrens resulting adult weight. The children born from fat parents became fat and the children born of skinny parents became skinny. Genetics largely wins. There are a whole host of physiologic and metabolic factors that contribute to weight that cannot be controlled. Appetite for instance. Have you ever found yourself wandering around the kitchen just looking at food even though you KNOW everything that is in the fridge. You may have just ate, but yet there you are staring at your food. I find myself doing this all the time. The drive to eat isn't entirely in the realm of conscious throught. I say people litterally can't control their hunger or their resulting eating much less the behavior leading to the process.
Buddha looks different depending on where you are. By all realistic standards, he was actually a stick figure.
|
On July 14 2009 11:03 aRod wrote: Before people utter anymore weight nonse understand that weight is LARGELY genetic. Adoptions studies have been done putting children from fat parents in the hands of skinny parents and children from skinny parents in the hands of fat parents. The environmental upbringing had almost no influence on the childrens resulting adult weight. The children born from fat parents became fat and the children born of skinny parents became skinny. Genetics largely wins. There are a whole host of physiologic and metabolic factors that contribute to weight that cannot be controlled. Appetite for instance. Have you ever found yourself wandering around the kitchen just looking at food even though you KNOW everything that is in the fridge. You may have just ate, but yet there you are staring at your food. I find myself doing this all the time. The drive to eat isn't entirely in the realm of conscious throught. I say people litterally can't control their hunger or their resulting eating much less the behavior leading to the process.
Buddha looks different depending on where you are. By all realistic standards, he was actually a stick figure. Wow what complete bullshit you're spewing, fatty. Tons of fat people have lost their weight, are they fucking wizards then?
edit: rats sometimes overeat to the point where they die. If you're suggesting that fat people are fat because they are as stupid as rats, then I'm inclined to agree.
|
On July 14 2009 11:03 aRod wrote: Before people utter anymore weight nonse understand that weight is LARGELY genetic. Adoptions studies have been done putting children from fat parents in the hands of skinny parents and children from skinny parents in the hands of fat parents. The environmental upbringing had almost no influence on the childrens resulting adult weight. The children born from fat parents became fat and the children born of skinny parents became skinny. Genetics largely wins. There are a whole host of physiologic and metabolic factors that contribute to weight that cannot be controlled. Appetite for instance. Have you ever found yourself wandering around the kitchen just looking at food even though you KNOW everything that is in the fridge. You may have just ate, but yet there you are staring at your food. I find myself doing this all the time. The drive to eat isn't entirely in the realm of conscious throught. I say people litterally can't control their hunger or their resulting eating much less the behavior leading to the process.
Buddha looks different depending on where you are. By all realistic standards, he was actually a stick figure.
You are correct that genetics do play a part in what kind of stature/build a person will develop, but that does not make it OK for someone to say "Oh, I can't help it if I'm fat, I just have fat parents." If you have genes that give you an increased appetite or decreased metabolism or whatever, it just means you personally need to work a little bit harder if you want to be healthier.
Of course, If you're happy the way you are, then you don't actually have to do anything.
|
On July 14 2009 11:07 psion0011 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 11:03 aRod wrote: Before people utter anymore weight nonse understand that weight is LARGELY genetic. Adoptions studies have been done putting children from fat parents in the hands of skinny parents and children from skinny parents in the hands of fat parents. The environmental upbringing had almost no influence on the childrens resulting adult weight. The children born from fat parents became fat and the children born of skinny parents became skinny. Genetics largely wins. There are a whole host of physiologic and metabolic factors that contribute to weight that cannot be controlled. Appetite for instance. Have you ever found yourself wandering around the kitchen just looking at food even though you KNOW everything that is in the fridge. You may have just ate, but yet there you are staring at your food. I find myself doing this all the time. The drive to eat isn't entirely in the realm of conscious throught. I say people litterally can't control their hunger or their resulting eating much less the behavior leading to the process.
Buddha looks different depending on where you are. By all realistic standards, he was actually a stick figure. Wow what complete bullshit you're spewing, fatty. Tons of fat people have lost their weight, are they fucking wizards then? edit: rats sometimes overeat to the point where they die. If you're suggesting that fat people are fat because they are as stupid as rats, then I'm inclined to agree.
For the record, I'm not fat. I've always been an absolute stick figure regrettably.
Everything I said about the adoption study is completely true, Mark, AL; Clin. Exp. Physiol. Pharm. 33:857-62, 2006. I feel no need to defend the notion that fat people breed fat people.
I also doubt you have any qualms with my claim there are a whole host of metabolic and physiologic factors that influence weight. The neuroregulation of appetite, the hormones involved, and much of the process is well understood physiologically. Some obese patients have defects in the system that contribute to overeating such as neuroregulatory defects resulting in lack of appetite cessation and the example of hormone resistance (Leptin resistance is a great example of this). People also have different appetite regulatory hormone profiles before and after meals. Could this influence how and what they eat?
I hope your only qualms are with the last point in my post. I see humans largely as animals driven to behave in certain ways by a host of factors often outside of awareness. My example of wandering around the kitchen should only serve to illustrate feeding behavior exists, and it isn't always a thought out logical process. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying fat people cannot lose weight nor or those who lose weight are "fucking wizards". Fat people lose weight all the time and this is great. I'm trying to illustrate the point that people have genetic susceptibility to gain weight that is linked to their feeding behavior by genetics. I should retract the statement "I say people literally can't control their hunger or their resulting eating much less the behavior leading to the process," and modify it to "people literally can't stop experiencing hunger or cravings which in part drive what and when people eat." To the fat people out there who eat loads of lettuce to help reduce your hunger cravings, I salute you.
|
On July 14 2009 11:49 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2009 11:07 psion0011 wrote:On July 14 2009 11:03 aRod wrote: Before people utter anymore weight nonse understand that weight is LARGELY genetic. Adoptions studies have been done putting children from fat parents in the hands of skinny parents and children from skinny parents in the hands of fat parents. The environmental upbringing had almost no influence on the childrens resulting adult weight. The children born from fat parents became fat and the children born of skinny parents became skinny. Genetics largely wins. There are a whole host of physiologic and metabolic factors that contribute to weight that cannot be controlled. Appetite for instance. Have you ever found yourself wandering around the kitchen just looking at food even though you KNOW everything that is in the fridge. You may have just ate, but yet there you are staring at your food. I find myself doing this all the time. The drive to eat isn't entirely in the realm of conscious throught. I say people litterally can't control their hunger or their resulting eating much less the behavior leading to the process.
Buddha looks different depending on where you are. By all realistic standards, he was actually a stick figure. Wow what complete bullshit you're spewing, fatty. Tons of fat people have lost their weight, are they fucking wizards then? edit: rats sometimes overeat to the point where they die. If you're suggesting that fat people are fat because they are as stupid as rats, then I'm inclined to agree. I should retract the statement "I say people literally can't control their hunger or their resulting eating much less the behavior leading to the process," and modify it to "people literally can't stop experiencing hunger or cravings which in part drive what and when people eat." That sounds better to me.
Of course everyone has a different view on people who are too weak to resist this urge. Unfortunately my opinion is in the "wow you're a worthless disgusting pig" category, and I can't change that. I literally feel sick when I see fat people in real life.
|
|
|
|