Gepetto

1st round, Biff drafts Movie-tough guy: Back to the Future - Biff Tannen

Those will be delivered by others and neatly stacked on pallets ready for the event festivities. It's all part of their plan.

The Bills will never win a Super Bowl in your lifetime.

Unless you're stung by a jelly fish, or you're NewbieJr

Rule #1 Don't question the rules.

Where was the outrage when Biden tightened up on immigration of illegals back in the summer? He did that to attempt to win an election because he knew the majority of Americans were not happy with the flood of illegal immigrants coming in.

That's just your opinion.

Same backpack. Sunlight shows the blue color. In the faded gray image you can tell the backpack is not black by comparing it to his shirt. Stop falling for conspiracy theories put forth by idiots on twitter and youtube.

Trump is in charge of the Executive branch of the Federal Government. His job, besides commander in chief of the military (protection of the US), is to see that laws are enforced. Undocumented people from countries outside the US that entered and stay in the US broke the law. To enforce the law is to remove those people to areas back outside of our country.

The next 3 years are going to go slow and last a lifetime. It's a wonderful time!

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/drew-struzan-dies-movie-posters-1236400361/

He lied about the worst murder on US soil this year and in a while. He lies all the time politically. He's a shill for the Democratic Party. Do you want Alex Jones saying lies too? It's not about Alex Jones, its about DA GOVAMENT!! Blah blah

Biff Tannen hates manure.

That's funny. But, it can be both (Trump and Investors), which is what I wrote. I blamed Trump too. I think today's market was down earlier today because something China did though. Market ended up slightly up today though.

It’s possible the Stock Market app didn’t update my specific mutual funds until late in the day and the 2 and 3% down shown was from the day before. I don’t know.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5463771/epa-greenhouse-gas-regulations-cars-pollution For years the Environmental Protection Agency has pushed carmakers to reduce how much vehicles contribute to climate change. Today the EPA laid out plans to not just weaken those rules, but end them entirely. In 2009, the agency determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are a form of air pollution that the agency can regulate under the Clean Air Act. That's because those gases contribute to climate change, which harms human health. That determination, called the "endangerment finding," underpins major regulations — including strict tailpipe standards for carmakers that envisioned at least half the new cars sold in the U.S. being electric or plug-in hybrids by 2030. The transportation sector is the largest source of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. President Trump campaigned against "electric vehicle mandates," and once in office, pledged to roll back such rules. Three sets of regulations that push companies to build cars that burn less gasoline — or no gas at all — were in his sights. His administration and Congress have already eliminated or weakened two of them. First, the administration asked Congress to revoke the EPA waiver that allows California to set the state's zero-emission vehicle mandate. That was an unprecedented move, and in May, Congress did as requested. The federal CAFE standards, meanwhile, are still in place — for now. But the Department of Transportation is currently reviewing those rules, after stating that it costs automakers too much to comply with them, and that they drive up prices for consumers. Rewriting the rules "will lower vehicle costs and ensure the American people can purchase the cars they want," Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy wrote in a statement in June. (The regulations do increase the cost of cars, but consumer groups have repeatedly found they save drivers far more in fuel over the life of the car than they create in upfront costs.) In the meantime, Congress has defanged the CAFE standards by removing the fines for carmakers who fail to meet them. That change, passed in the mega tax and spending bill that President Trump recently signed into law, could save hundreds of millions of dollars for automakers like General Motors and Stellantis that have chosen to make less efficient vehicles and pay the resulting penalties. And it removes the incentive for other automakers to comply; they face no consequences if they don't. That leaves the EPA's tailpipe standards. Under the EPA's proposal, tailpipe rules about pollution that directly harms human health, such as particulates, would remain in place; so would requirements for labels about fuel economy. But all the regulations related to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from cars would be removed. Public comments and lawsuits While the rollback of the California waiver and the elimination of CAFE fees have both been signed into law, the EPA's change is just a proposal. There will be a comment period, when companies, organizations and members of the general public can tell the agency what they think, and the EPA is required to take those comments into consideration before it finalizes any changes. Public comments will be accepted through September 21, while a public hearing will be held in August. The deregulatory push is also being challenged in court — and will almost certainly face more lawsuits. California has sued over the revocation of its EPA waiver. States and environmental groups have also asked the federal courts to review some of NHTSA's changes to the CAFE standards. The Environmental Defense Fund has repeatedly sued the Trump administration over changes that weaken environmental protections. Asked whether this latest change is likely to prompt litigation, Vickie Patton, the group's chief counsel, paused for a moment. "This would be one of the most damaging actions, really, ever taken in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency, if they move forward with an effort to just walk away from protecting the American people from some of the most dangerous pollution in our lives," she said, pointing to the ongoing effects of heat waves and fires made worse by climate change, in addition to smog and soot from vehicles. "It is EPA's responsibility to carry out the law and ensure that the American people are protected from harmful tailpipe pollution." Uncertainty for automakers Rolling back vehicle standards has long been a priority for the oil and biofuels industries, with focus on the issue intensifying as the rules grew stricter. In a statement last fall, the American Petroleum Institute called the standards an "intrusive government mandate," while the American Farm Bureau said it would "pull the rug out from underneath farmers" growing crops for renewable fuels. The auto industry's position has been more nuanced, with the major automaker trade group the Alliance for Automotive Innovation stepping up a few years ago to defend the EPA's right to set strict standards — but also frequently pointing out that it would be far easier and more efficient to have one set of standards instead of three. Recently, as EV demand grew more slowly than expected — now expected to be made worse by the administration's elimination of consumer EV tax credits — traditional automakers had been vocally warning that the Biden-era standards are unfeasible. On Tuesday John Bozzella, the president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, issued a statement saying the group is "reviewing" the proposal "to understand what it means for U.S. vehicle emissions rules going forward." He added that "there's no question the vehicle emissions regulations finalized under the previous administration aren't achievable and should be revised to reflect current market conditions." The trade group representing auto dealers, generally more skeptical of EVs than manufacturers, said that the existing rules would raise the cost of cars and trucks and that dealers "share the administration's concerns regarding vehicle affordability and customer choice." Ford, in a statement emailed to NPR, said that it appreciated the work to address the "imbalance" between the current regulations and the market, adding: "America needs a single, stable standard to foster business planning." Having a "stable" rule is a key concern for companies. While many automakers would welcome an easing of the rules, the flip-flopping between administrations and the drawn-out lawsuits create enormous uncertainty for them, even as companies have to make decisions about their product lineups five years or more into the future. As for consumers, Beia Spiller, an economist and a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan think tank, points out that drivers like having more efficient cars. "People would prefer to have a vehicle that costs them less to operate," she says. But, she says, research shows that new car buyers focus more on up-front prices (especially now, when those prices are so high) and under-value their future fuel savings. That means market forces alone won't push cars to get clean as fast as regulations. So the rollback, in addition to increasing emissions, would also increase long-term fuel costs for drivers. But, she says, it also wouldn't send the market into an immediate U-turn toward gas guzzlers. Automakers have made major investments in cleaner car technologies. Some of those investments might be reversed, and just written off as lost money; others might be carried forward. Even as EV sales flag, she says, hybrids, in particular, are likely to stay strong.

That's interesting. Definitely sounds like coaching fixed those things over the bye week. That's pretty good.

Congrats on your team winning, 3 straight I heard. Good head coaching hire. Just looked at Bears scores this year and it was 25-24 Bears over Raiders last week and exact same 25-24 over Commanders tonight. Both on the road.

Finally found this thread. I glanced at the clock on my computer a couple minutes ago at the exact split second it turned to 11:11. BOOM!

You're wrong. Trump's right. As usual.

In my opinion there are a few more Alice in Chains songs that are better than the few chosen. I would have taken a couple not picked yet in the 2nd and 3rd round.

My mutual funds are down another 2% to 3% today. FOCK. Investors are stupid. edit: they ended up 1% to 2%. Crazy swing.

Mahomes best QB, best stats

WRONG. I refer you to point 13 in Trump's 20 point Israel-Gaza Peace Plan.