18th Feb 2013, 13:43
Not just Romney. Also check out the Rockefeller family, big bank CEOs, entertainment moguls, big media bosses, politicians, big name lawyers, and higher up government employees.
19th Feb 2013, 11:50
Cars aren't the problem with China's cities, it's their factories for the most part. You see, when the EPA "got rid" of the pollution in the US back in the 1970s, they never really got rid of it. They just had it sent somewhere out of sight for most Americans, which is China.
Also remember, China doesn't have emissions laws like we do either. Catalytic converters and other anti-smog devices are purely optional over there.
And yes, I'm not going to buy into the climate change hype. Not because of any liberal association. Mostly because I'd rather not see crazy guys like Bill McKibben gain legitimacy in the political sphere. Modern environmentalism is not interested in saving the world through the use of technology. They want a total reduction in progress, which would be impossible in a world of over 7 billion people.
Read a lot of their more radical works to see for yourself. Read their writings and see what they really believe in behind closed doors. Don't buy into the sensationalist bullcrap NBC and CNN airs to glorify their cause. The EPA isn't the bad guy, but the NGOs that try to force their political beliefs down regular people's throats are the bad guys in all of this.
They believe that the world would be a better place without people. They want people to be born into a life without happiness, long life, healthiness, or not be born at all. People have no duty to sacrifice themselves for animals or bacteria, and don't buy into their twisted philosophy that we somehow do.
19th Feb 2013, 15:11
The claim that environmentalists are filled with glee to somehow make things more expensive for the middle class is bizarre...
19th Feb 2013, 16:01
In the U.S. anything advocated by Democrats is opposed by Republicans. If the Democrats said that the Moon was in the sky, the Republicans would deny it and call it a "hoax". This is how they became known as "The party of NO". The questions don't matter. If it was asked by a Democrat, the answer is always "NO".
There is so much evidence to support the reality of man-made global warming and its devastating costs that it can't be simply declared a "hoax" and added to the list of "liberal conspiracies".
We have experienced a drought so severe it has driven up goods prices world wide and cost farmers 34 billion dollars.
We recorded the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded during hurricane Sandy.
The ice melting in the Arctic has been so severe that NASA scientists referred to it as a "planetary emergency".
Last year was the hottest year ever recorded.
The costs of the global-warming generated wildfires, storms and crop failures has costs American taxpayers enough to fund alternative energy research for a decade.
And contrary to what some believe, there are not enough Bentleys, Rolls Royces, Ferraris or Lamborghinis on the entire planet to offset the amount of pollution spewed by all the 8-mile-per-gallon pickup trucks in any one U.S. state.
There are more cars than there are people in the U.S. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles far exceeds that of farming and industry combined. Just switching from a 10-mile-per gallon SUV to a 40-mile-per-gallon mid-sized car would make a very noticeable difference.
And no one has to give up grand old luxury cars such as the beautiful old Lincolns that are the subject of this review. They can be restored as a hobby and driven occasionally for enjoyment. My family owns a beautifully restored 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T and a. 1967 Charger. They are a wonderful hobby. They are seldom driven, however. For daily commuting we use more modern and economical cars.
For my own daily use I drive a 4-cylinder car that gets over 30 miles per gallon. I also own a sports car that averages being driven once a week or less. Even it gets over 25 miles per gallon.
We are stewards of the planet, whether we are rich or poor. No one has the financial resources to migrate to another planet even if one were available. To hasten the destruction of our one and only home is a great disservice to our children and grandchildren. To deny that such destruction is happening daily is to deny the confirmed findings of four decades of climate research and hundreds of cases of visible evidence.
19th Feb 2013, 16:46
The problem is they aren't the same cars. If I could drive a full-size luxury car like the one in this review that gets 40 MPG, needless to say that would be great. The only problem is that for whatever reason Detroit is either unable or unwilling to build a larger fuel efficient vehicle. As has been pointed out in many previous posts, not everyone wants to drive in a small sub-compact, which for the most part right now is the only way you can reach 40 MPG, and that type of car in no way can compare to the roominess or comfort of a large vehicle. People like myself will continue to drive in comfort until a change is absolutely necessitated by money.
In my opinion, I think we have come a long way since the late 60s or early 70s. At this point I think some views on the environment are simply fanatical and will do more harm than good. I think for a long time in the 80s to the early 00s we had a happy medium; now that the liberals have control, I think things are simply getting out of hand! And sadly many of them, like their poster child Al Gore, are nothing more than hypocrites expecting the shrinking middle-class to make the sacrifices rather than themselves.
20th Feb 2013, 15:58
Anyone wanting old-world luxury and comfort with all the benefits of modern cars, including 40-plus mile per gallon economy, need only look as far as the new Lincoln MKZ.
20th Feb 2013, 16:48
Unfortunately, soon there won't even be a compromise between driving these cars for even the weekend, with gas prices going up and up and all. Gas will probably be about $10 a gallon by 2020 or so.
21st Feb 2013, 13:26
I find the "Oh no! Liberals are ruinin' everything!" comments entertaining. I guess if we're going to go down that path, how realistic is it for EVERYTHING to stay exactly the same? Is it realistic to suggest that we should only ever be conservative? I ask because that's what conservatism is about "Not ever changing, and keeping things the same". Back in the day there was an enormous amount of resistance against cars when everyone was still using horses as their main transport. Luckily for us, forward thinking always prevails, and the best conservatives can do is slightly slow down the speed of progress.
So too is that with environmental emissions. Thank goodness conservatives didn't get their way when it came to pollution. Thanks to forward thinkers, we can all breath a lot easier today.
And yes - for the billionth time - yes I own a '55 Mercury, and thanks for remembering again. That has nothing to do with anything, so if a point was trying to be made, then it's beyond me.