Jump to content

WARNING All of our cars could be outlawed!


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, SC38DLS said:

The Covid 19 discussion was pulled from the forum for being too decisive or something along those  lines. How has this bull lasted this long?

its political and that is not right for this forum. 
 


quit crying about it it’s this simple you don’t like what’s being talked about than don’t read it not that hard dude. If you want to contribute to the conversation than do it without complaining and acting like a child I just turned 20 so I find this topic quite important for me especially since I have many old cars with my dad

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cole motor car lover said:


quit crying about it it’s this simple you don’t like what’s being talked about than don’t read it not that hard dude. If you want to contribute to the conversation than do it without complaining and acting like a child I just turned 20 so I find this topic quite important for me especially since I have many old cars with my dad

 

And your in no danger of not being able to enjoy them. This is sensationalist hype designed to make you frightened and angry at specific people so you will vote for a different group of people. 

 

Even if there was the desire to do this its just not reasonably possible. Outlaw internal combustion and the entire world stops. How does stuff get to the store without trucks? Ocean freight without diesel engines? People in remote areas getting to their jobs? It just can't happen logistically any time soon no matter how much you may think there's an evil cabal of politicians who only want to destroy everything you love.

 

Your young. I dont care how you vote just as long as you think first instead of being spoon fed by tv radio and internet pundits who only want you scared and pliable.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FLYER15015 said:

I guess that's why Stag Arms left New Britain, Conn. and moved to Cheyenne, Wy. in April.

And Mag -Pull left Longmont, Colo. and moved to Cheyenne quite a while ago.

 

 

Mike in Colorado

PS; If you leave NYC and move to Wy. please leave your old ideas behind.

 

 

 Amen on that PS  Mike!

 

  Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, billorn said:

 

And your in no danger of not being able to enjoy them. This is sensationalist hype designed to make you frightened and angry at specific people so you will vote for a different group of people. 

 

Even if there was the desire to do this its just not reasonably possible. Outlaw internal combustion and the entire world stops. How does stuff get to the store without trucks? Ocean freight without diesel engines? People in remote areas getting to their jobs? It just can't happen logistically any time soon no matter how much you may think there's an evil cabal of politicians who only want to destroy everything you love.

 

Your young. I dont care how you vote just as long as you think first instead of being spoon fed by tv radio and internet pundits who only want you scared and pliable.

I’m not scared about anything because I believe in the constitution and if any government tried taking anything from me than I can tell you that would probably be the end because I wouldn’t go without a fight. I do not think it will happen especially anytime soon however that does not mean you can’t have a conversation about it so it bothers me when I see people whining and crying about how it should be removed when I find it quite important for the car hobby as a whole. Also I do not follow any specific party I only vote for truth and honesty and my beliefs which I am very strong about. I am not spoon fed anything I do all my own research like a smart independent free thinking person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The comment was made that self propelled vehicles would be around in the future, just may be electric instead of fossil fuel.

 

The fallacy in this statement is that 63% of all electricity in the United States comes from fossil fuel power plants.  This, because the U.S.is scared of nuclear power, so no money invested there.  France, for example, was progressive, and over 90% of that country’s power is nuclear.

 

So, all we’re really doing with electric cars is shifting where the fossil fuels will be burned.

 

The other fallacy in eliminating fossil fuel powered vehicles is that petroleum must be refined for other uses, gasoline is a byproduct of the refining process.  Before cars were being used in any numbers, kerosene was the major product distilled from crude oil.  Gasoline, the byproduct, was often just  dumped in the nearest river.   Of course, I guess we could build gasoline fueled power plants to generate electricity to charge all those batteries.

 

One problem that lawmakers have is they often just ask for the big, impressive, result.  They don’t look at the consequences of the law.  Ethanol is the perfect example, cost car owners millions in retrofit to handle it, was and is an ecological disaster, and by using it miles per gallon with cars were reduced, so overall impact in usage is lessened.

Edited by trimacar (see edit history)
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FLYER15015 said:

I guess that's why Stag Arms left New Britain, Conn. and moved to Cheyenne, Wy. in April.

And Mag -Pull left Longmont, Colo. and moved to Cheyenne quite a while ago.

 

 

Mike in Colorado

PS; If you leave NYC and move to Wy. please leave your old ideas behind.

 

 

 

Thats the problem we have down south.......over taxed and regulated people coming down and doing the same thing here............we will run out of good places to live if they keep moving around.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not too hard for the government to eliminate something they disapprove of without "banning" it. Things like smelly, polluting, carbon spewing symbols of privilege. The simplest would be to require any car licensed to drive on a public road to pass current pollution tests. After that refuse to license any thing with asbestos (see Australia). An annual inspection would be required, at owner expense, at a government "Regulation Compliance and Conformity Center for Public Safety". Require any licensed car to pass a  head light "illumination test". How about a brake efficiency and equalization test. What forward thinking young person could disagree with all that?

So, you can have all the old cars you want except they would be museum pieces...............Bob

Edited by Bhigdog (see edit history)
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 1912Staver said:

I take it you are referring to the green new deal. 

 

The Green New Deal was started by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. How does she get from point A to point B in NY? In a big black Suburban with tinted windows.... :(

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

 

The Green New Deal was started by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. How does she get from point A to point B in NY? In a big black Suburban with tinted windows.... :(

 

Yes, I'm sure she does that out of hypocrisy and pure spite, and not because of all the wingnut death threats.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ben Bruce aka First Born said:

 PITA will fight that one.

 

You're getting People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) confused with Pain In The A** (PITA). There's a big difference there.... :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a discussion about fossil fuels being ban it’s one thing but to have an opening argument saying “ WARNING one political party wants to ban  .....”.makes it political.
There is no way to say that isn’t. 
I've been told to be quite, not participate and quite complaining. If I do that how is this a discussion?  

I have an opinion this is wrong for the forum. If you don’t like that too bad. The fact I have that option is “What made this  country great in the first place”. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see them banning our old cars but I'm more concerned about how they value & charge for Personal Property Tax on them, I think Chuck Schumer wants to come after our wallets.  They can raise the tax to a point we can't afford to own one and be unable to sell it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SC38DLS said:

If you want a discussion about fossil fuels being ban it’s one thing but to have an opening argument saying “ WARNING one political party wants to ban  .....”.makes it political.

Well, If you read Mr. Biden's energy policy it vows a "100% clean energy policy by 2050".

I'd say discussing the loss of the fuel to make our cars operate would be impossible without mentioning the political forces that wish to make it happen. This should be a topic of PRIME importance to our hobby and ourselves. And yes, it will by necessity involve our elected "leaders" since they are the ones in control over our hobby's future and our fate.

If this discussion serves to help one form an opinion on the policies of either political party as they impact our hobby that is a very good thing.

The only way to stave off policies that are detrimental to our hobby and in some cases our livelihood is at the ballot box or other ways of  influencing POLITICAL decisions ............Bob

 

Edited by Bhigdog (see edit history)
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SC38DLS said:

If you want a discussion about fossil fuels being ban it’s one thing but to have an opening argument saying “ WARNING one political party wants to ban  .....”.makes it political.
There is no way to say that isn’t. 
I've been told to be quite, not participate and quite complaining. If I do that how is this a discussion?  

I have an opinion this is wrong for the forum. If you don’t like that too bad. The fact I have that option is “What made this  country great in the first place”. 

 

You don’t have an opinion on the topic at all you have just complained that it should be removed why because you do not agree with what is being said that is called censorship not an opinion. An opinion would be I do not see any political parties banning cars anytime soon and than state your reasoning as to why but I have not seen you do that yet? Like I’ve said before if you don’t like it than don’t read it’s no different than if someone posted saying we believe that old cars should be converted to electric power I would not agree with that but I would not ask for it to be removed or complain about it just read and see if there is something new for me to learn from it and if I don’t agree with it I could than state my reasoning as to why instead of just saying oh this is to political remove it now because I don’t like that. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything of lately, look around you in most states.  We have a constitution but it's been trampled on hard over the last 4 months.  With very biased execution of the laws it seems,  or lack of enforcement at all for the serious ones,  while many petty ones are enforced with vengence.. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read Mr Trumps platform (it has to be the Republican 2016 platform as they stated they are using that one for this election) they can no longer sit by with the economy in the state it is in, they must do something about the unemployment status, and the over taxing problem. Sounds like the Democratic Party platform to me. They don’t mention the pandemic that is happening (maybe that’s a hoax) or a national plan to even slow it down. Unless of course it will simply disappear in April with the hot weather, wait a minute it’s August isn’t it. Maybe the scientists will find a way to inject us all with bleach to stop it, wait a minute bleach is toxic if injected. I point these things out to show how stupid some things can be you read on the internet (believe it or not just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it true), wait a minute these are well documented factual statements made by President Trump. That must make them true and accurate. 
Wake up to the fact politicians will say anything they think will get them a headline or a few minutes on the news. They look out for themselves first and last, we are lucky if they consider the common man in between. 
I would bet between the oil and automotive lobbyists, unions and Wall Street nothing will change as far as the availability of fuel for our cars in the next 50 years. 
dave s 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SC38DLS said:

I would bet between the oil and automotive lobbyists, unions and Wall Street nothing will change as far as the availability of fuel for our cars in the next 50 years. 

 

Maybe yes. Maybe no.

For those us who like (love) our old cars and hobby it would be wise to err on the side of those forces that are friendly to our way of life......Bob

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cadillac Fan said:

It will be fun in 20 years to pull up this thread as I am gassing up my Cadillac and laugh at all the opinions that never came to fruition.  

 

You will be one of the fortunate ones that have a very generous "Carbon Card". That's the card you insert in the pump that is both a credit and "carbon allowance" debit card. You will be allowed only so much "carbon" per quarter. This will depend on each person's need, to be decided by the Federal Carbon and Climate Regulation Agency.

Of course there will always be the black market and guys selling cans of bath tub gas............Bob

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cadillac Fan said:

It will be fun in 20 years to pull up this thread as I am gassing up my Cadillac and laugh at all the opinions that never came to fruition.  

Or you could be reminiscing about how nice it was when you had the option to gas up your Cadillac. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, padgett said:

errr Columbus didn't reach North America.

Yes not technically North America but that Area though the Caribbean is in the vicinity of the Americas so many considered it the Americas.  Especially early on until further exploration charted everything further.   Actually the Vikings really found it earlier,  but their warring culture didn't really survive well like that of much of the rest of Europe.  That's why Columbus is Accredited with it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve read a number of the internet articles on this ban. Some are just laughable (similar to injecting bleach) others may have some merit. Of the ones with merit they all seem to say they are in favor of reducing fossil fuel emissions not eliminating fossil fuels. Science and the competitive business Industry  has proven to be pretty good at coming up with solutions for things like this over time. It’s the nature of business to make a profit off of problems in society. Some also say no NEW internal combustion engines it cars 20 to 30 years from now. That doesn’t affect our current cars. It just means future antiques will have power from a different method than what we have now. Very similar to a brass enthusiast saying they don’t think 80’s cars should be in the AACA as they are modern cars, but those of us still around will just have to accept it as part of progress. 

Edited by SC38DLS (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

Yes not technically North America but that Area though the Caribbean is in the vicinity of the Americas so many considered it the Americas.  Especially early on until further exploration charted everything further.   Actually the Vikings really found it earlier,  but their warring culture didn't really survive well like that of much of the rest of Europe.  That's why Columbus is Accredited with it. 

Technically If you check  it is believed the Asian tribes walked over before the continents split completely forming the Aleutian Islands. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long before they decide to go after existing once they regulate new out of existence?  You can say it doesn't happen but I have seen evidence to the contrary with many things the Govt has control over and since they have the power to curtail registration or Inspection, even as mentioned make it too expensive to own via an annual tax that increases.  Many ways to accomplish the end goal of elimination.  If you don't believe there is a faction that wouldn't like to see us have no fossil fuel used at all ever,  then you aren't looking hard enough.  They don't even try to hide their bias.

Might sound like the ideals of a young inexperienced person that will wise up,  but eventually they grow up and some never change their beliefs as they never allow discussion on the topic.  They then become town council people,  then Representatives and Governors bringing those ideals with them.  If you can never discuss it,  they will never have the opportunity to decide if their beliefs they were often indoctrinated with at a very young age without ever seeing the other point of view are correct or not.  Much is learned early and not all sources are factual they are taught from for either side if you want to keep it nonpolitical. 

It's hard to determine what the real truth is though unless each side presents facts and has discussion that show those facts support their point of view.  Then it's up to those they are challenging to decide if there are enough facts to prove the belief as true.  

Hard to do if one side is not allowed to present any information.  Anything thought to be incorrect rather than be censored can then be shown with proven facts why it's incorrect.  But rememebr often what is taken as fact is not always correct and needs to be challenged to uphold the standard of Fact. 

Flat world, Universe revolves around the earth, man can't fly, seem to be a few things that were fact,  challenged and then proven false.  If these people were censored and never allowed to present their Philosophy and prove why they thought this ,  where would be today? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple. Just raise the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline. I find it amazing that vehicles from 100 years ago can run of the same gasoline available today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SC38DLS said:

Technically If you check  it is believed the Asian tribes walked over before the continents split completely forming the Aleutian Islands. 
 

Again,  their nature of record keeping and years of warring have not left us with the solid proof.  Obviously some sort of migration happened eons ago as I doubt that magically every where on the planet people appeared .  Again records and cultures lost so I'm going off what we have written record of.  The fact one can even challenge my statements is good.  See you present facts.  I present what I have learned as facts and we discuss it.  Though I Imagine there is alot more of this topic neither of us understand and have such limited information post to time to prove. 

 

The one at hand that directly affects our passion is easier to grasp and discuss. 

 

I'll let scientists and Archeologists discuss Man's life and evolution on the planet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

E85 and E90 gas discussions have already happened to satisfy the auto manufacturers who want to use this fuel to standardize how much energy and emissions they can deal with for future designs.  The corn fuel lobby would love for this to happen so that corn farmers have lots of market for their product.  This proposal has been floated in the past four years with little or no regard for existing autos of any kind or year of manufacture.  Don’t get the idea that one party is the good guy or bad guy in this discussion, it all comes down to money and lobbyist influence.

 

What is more pressing is Post Office support, Medicare and Social security funding, affordable health insurance for all and especially for those with health conditions and of course physical and economic recovery from the pandemic.  Even though the ad is trying to discredit the candidate he is shown driving his Corvette rather than playing golf like the other guy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is simple: from the garden of eden, the same swallows that carried coconuts to the Uk, carried early men and women to various locations around the world. Given the my generation en were 5'10" and my son's is over 6', in 4004 BC people must have been about 4" tall. (where the legend of Thumbelina comes from).

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 1935Packard said:

 

When I google it, the only thing that comes up is Joe Biden gushing over his '67 Corvette -- which he does not seem to want to ban.  

 

 

 

look harder... use the phrase wants to ban cars

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lebowski said:

 

The Green New Deal was started by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. How does she get from point A to point B in NY? In a big black Suburban with tinted windows.... :(

An Armored Tesla if you believe one has no Carbon footprint would set a better example? 

Though after the whole Amazon Debacle I would be afraid of the people in my own district as well. 

I would want to ride around in a Sherman tank with an infantry unit and air support if it was me. 

Of course I don't feel safe in that part of NY state any way you look at it.  I can reason with bears and Coyotes we have a mutual resect for one another. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just googled “Wants to ban cars”. Every one of the articles say “NEW” cars. By omitting that fact it becomes scare tactics, added to the Decisive political atmosphere in this country today is my reasoning this thread is wrong for this great forum. That is my opinion and I have the right to have that opinion no matter what anyone else thinks about it. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To swerve (note the use of automotive driving lingo)  back to the topic of this thread, I returned to the original post in an attempt to be as clear as I can be on O.P.'s intent.

 

For those of you too busy to read the article I linked 11 hours ago, here is the meat:

 

“By my plan, by 2045 we will have basically zero emission vehicles only,” California Sen. Kamala Harris said during the town hall. “100 percent by 2045.”

In fact, Harris’ climate plan calls for 100 percent of new car sales to be zero-emission vehicles 10 years earlier than that — in 2035. Her proposal also promises to implement an updated “cash for clunkers” program, with “incentives for cars to be replaced with zero-emission vehicles manufactured in America, and extra, targeted assistance for low and middle-income families.”

 

Although old/collector cars are not specifically mentioned, it seems pretty clear to me that Senator Harris is striving to remove ALL internal combustion engine vehicles from our roadways by 2045.  Or am I missing something here?  I believe Senator Harris is a Dimocrat of some note.

 

Cheers,

Grog

 

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SC38DLS said:

I just googled “Wants to ban cars”. Every one of the articles say “NEW” cars. By omitting that fact it becomes scare tactics, added to the Decisive political atmosphere in this country today is my reasoning this thread is wrong for this great forum. That is my opinion and I have the right to have that opinion no matter what anyone else thinks about it. 
 

Starts with new and progresses to existing. They are doing it in the UK and India.   Won't be long before they see an old Willys Knight smoking down the road and that will become the poster child for the drive to turn them to museums or even better extinction. 

 

Have we not learned a thing from the last 4 months.  Starts small and temporary then grows.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, plymouthcranbrook said:

I suggest taking a breath. Not gonna happen in our lifetimes. Just like the continual stories of “They are gonna take your guns away”.  That said, back to cars.

They will never takes guns away - it is actually the success of democracy.  That said though certain automatic weapons should be taken away and the allowing them causes all the hysterical of we need to take away ALL (aka the bad egg in the bunch spoils all the good eggs).  Sort of like the argument of Facebook needing to self regulate - well, they had better or they write the prescription for their own demise. 

 

As to electric cars - well, the battery technology is so harmful to environment that it really has to be an option as this point verses the whole.  And, gasoline is an incredible vibrant part of the economy. That said, the self regulation must still take place as again, the bad egg spoils the whole. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...