Do Conservatives Hate High Gas Mileage?

Quote from riptide_slick : When did the big bad gubbmint ban "more powerful engines?"

The same time Republicans have said that everyone should have as much gas as they want and that there is nothing wrong with using as much as they want.

Quote from Radeck : because it's yet another nanny-state initiative it's NOT about gas mileage, it's about freedom and the nanny-state regulating and controlling literally EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our daily lives.

What about the perspective of national defense?

I prefer to spend as little as possible on gas, so I'm all for increased MPG.
However, every time I see a Prius around here, they always seem to have an Obama sticker or a Coexist sticker. The bumper sticker crowd tends to annoy me.
And the fact that every Prius owner I've personally known, always seems to ride a very high horse...

Quote from paperboy05 : That's not that specific. Do you have something better?

I wasn't clear about what you were asking for: whether the claim had merit, or whether anyone has dismissed the problems with using as much gas as one wants. It is pretty clear that the policial right has disregarded this issue outright. The only concerns they associate with consumption are related to personal expense which they view as a 'personal rights issue'. Fair enough. But any time environmental or societal are brought up, their only concern is 'debunking'.


Think about the issues that have come up related to oil companies, global warming, pipelines, fraking, the gulf spill, or anything else related to petroleum. When has the political right ever been concerned with societal/global problems of too much petroleum use? The closest issue I can think of is energy independence, which is ultimately concerned about the costs and availability of gas rather than use of it. With the "Drill, baby, drill" mantra, they officially became cheerleaders.

I for one love high mileage vehicles, I just don't like government regulations that push the industry in one direction or another.

As a family, we drive less than 12k a year (1 car) and recently changed from a Mazda3 to a Jeep Compass (MPG hit, but man do we have more space!

If/when we drive more, I think I'll start looking at diesel cars. Living in NE, I don't think the cold weather works as well with a battery. Plus, it just seems like 'hybrids' are over priced.

Quote from Radeck : six of one or half a dozen of the other....mandating standards that mean manufacturers can't make powerful (and yes gas guzzling) engines is effectively a ban...just like the new light bulb standards are effectively a ban of the 100W incandescent bulb.

I actually agree with you about the lightbulb ban; it's stupid. But I disagree that mandating efficiency standards means that more powerful engines are banned. Engines today are much more powerful and efficient than their predecessors were. The aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

Quote from Radeck : don't play your lib word games with me...

I'm not the one saying anything was "banned." I simply asked you a question about your "word games".

Quote from Radeck : that's the same idiotic argument pushed by that idiot Bloomberg that he is not banning large sugary drinks, it's just "portion control"...

I'm not making that argument, and I disagree. The soda ban can be somewhat accurately described as "portion control" but can also somewhat accurately be described as a "ban". I happen to disagree with that too. But don't let a silly thing like my agreement with your disagreement stop you from mocking me. Glenn probably wouldn't approve of you agreeing with a liberal like me on anything.

Quote from Radeck : only morons with an IQ of their shoe size buy the argument that regulating something out of existence is NOT a ban.

Brilliant logic there; anyone that disagrees with you is a moron with an IQ of their shoe size. Sucks for you that I agree with you when it comes to the soda ban and the lightbulb ban. Kinda puts a damper on the attempt at an insult when I actually agree, doesn't it?

Seriously, how about trying to be a little less hostile? I know I'm not the first person to ask you this. You may be pleasantly surprised to find that not everyone fits into the boxes you've created for them and that there might even be some overlap between our opinions and those of people you so like to mock and deride. Heck, you might even live a little longer; the last time I checked, high blood pressure isn't generally considered a good thing.

Quote from Radeck : six of one or half a dozen of the other....mandating standards that mean manufacturers can't make powerful (and yes gas guzzling) engines is effectively a ban...just like the new light bulb standards are effectively a ban of the 100W incandescent bulb. don't play your lib word games with me...that's the same idiotic argument pushed by that idiot Bloomberg that he is not banning large sugary drinks, it's just "portion control"...only morons with an IQ of their shoe size buy the argument that regulating something out of existence is NOT a ban.

Except that they're not banning them... You can still get a hugely powerful twin turbo V8 or a W12 so why all the outrage?

I'm personally all for the higher standards. Why not? If anything it's actually helped us out. You may pay a little more for a turbo 4-cyl over a standard 6 but you recoup the cost in savings. I suppose that you're also for not mandating air quality standards?

As a child who grew up in LA I can see the huge improvement emissions control and increased efficiency has given us and as you can have a more powerful car today than at anytime in history why are peoples drawers in a bunch? Seems like a win win!

Quote from riptide_slick : I actually agree with you about the lightbulb ban; it's stupid. But I disagree that mandating efficiency standards means that more powerful engines are banned. Engines today are much more powerful and efficient than their predecessors were. The aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

not true..muscle cars of the 60's and 70's had much more power then even the most powerful production cars today

Quote : I'm not making that argument, and I disagree. The soda ban can be somewhat accurately described as "portion control" but can also somewhat accurately be described as a "ban". I happen to disagree with that too. But don't let a silly thing like my agreement with your disagreement stop you from mocking me.

I wasn't mocking you, I was mocking the argument about regulating out of existence is not a ban...that argument deserves to be mocked.

Quote : Glenn probably wouldn't approve of you agreeing with a liberal like me on anything.

Now who's mocking? That's the second time you bring Beck up...what does that red herring have to do with this topic?

Quote : Brilliant logic there; anyone that disagrees with you is a moron with an IQ of their shoe size.

If it works and is good enough for Obama, where he endlessly claims his policies are "common-sense" and "balanced" thus implying the lie that all opposing views are non-sensical and extreme, then it's good enough for me.

Quote : Sucks for you that I agree with you when it comes to the soda ban and the lightbulb ban. Kinda puts a damper on the attempt at an insult when I actually agree, doesn't it? Seriously, how about trying to be a little less hostile? I know I'm not the first person to ask you this. You may be pleasantly surprised to find that not everyone fits into the boxes you've created for them and that there might even be some overlap between our opinions and those of people you so like to mock and deride. Heck, you might even live a little longer; the last time I checked, high blood pressure isn't generally considered a good thing.

If I came across as hostile to you personally , I did not mean that and I apologize...I AM hostile towards certain arguments that insult a 5-year-old's intelligence, such as that regulating out of existence is not a ban, and they tick me off...I am tired of elitist politicians treating the me and public as if they are morons (such as Obama stating that only his policies are common-sense and balanced), and that attitude does fire up my blood pressure, you are correct.

I am glad that we agree on two of the arguments...I realize that there are areas of overlap that people can agree upon, and again I apologize for blowing up on you.

Quote from Radeck : not true..muscle cars of the 60's and 70's had much more power then even the most powerful production cars today

Wrong. So very wrong.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-review...-time.html

Quote from Rebound : What about the perspective of national defense?

since we have over 100 year's worth of oil right here in the USA, and several hundred years worth of natural gas, I see no problem with national defense....we are a slave to foreign oil providers only because we MADE OURSELVES THAT WAY with ludicrous over-regulation and limitation of access to our own natural resources....we just have to develop the resources we have right here, but there is not the political will to do it by those who are beholden to eco-pressure groups.

Quote from Tony_Danza : Wrong. So very wrong. http://www.edmunds.com/car-review...-time.html

99% of those are very high end, very expensive cars that only the fabled 1% can afford....comparing them to muscle cars of the past that were within reach of most middle class average folks and even high school students is not a valid comparison.

Quote from Radeck : 99% of those are very high end, very expensive cars that only the fabled 1% can afford....comparing them to muscle cars of the past that were within reach of most middle class average folks and even high school students is not a valid comparison.

Please name the car from the 60's and 70's that you would like to use as an example so we can avoid future goal post moving.

Personally, I put very few miles on my cars. I don't need or want the government telling me that I can't own a particular vehicle because it doesn't meet some standards set by enviro-weenie bureaucrats. Or regulations adding $5000 to the price of the car of which reduced fuel cost will recoup a small percentage.

Plus Prius'es, Mini's, Fiat 500's and the like look silly and clownish.

Quote from BigBananaMess : Plus Prius'es, Mini's, Fiat 500's and the like look silly and clownish.

not to mention less safe, and impractical for US lifestyles....their tiny trunks might be good enough for europeans living in 800SF apartments who don't have much of anything, are single, have no kids, no pets, and live in highly dense urban environments. But they are totally inadequate to amarican families who have more kids, have more pets, have larger homes that require larger cargo capacity, and live in more wide-spread areas doing a lot more long-distance high-way driving and commutes.