Gepetto

Held accountable criminally? Why? They lost their own child. They have to live with that. I don't understand why law enforcement, trials, courts need to be involved too. This is different than crummy parents that lock their kid(s) in a room or a cage or fail to feed them and they starve and die. If he was neglectful on purpose and with malice hoped the kid would fall in the pool and die, that would be different.

I have a new word for the Anti-Jewish Jews , Uncle Tims.

Why is this a story? Children drown in home pools often. Parents have to live with the loss. It's on them to keep their own child alive. Not the world's need to know though.

I don't believe at all that Hamas wants Palestinians to starve and/or die. Hamas came from these people. Hamas are Palestinian.

I just want to go on record that I have no debt. Paid cash for my $50k ride, and paid off house/mortgage and student loans years ago.

IDF stands for Israel Doesn't give a F u c k

I have a small collection of Blu-ray movies but they are my favorite movies of all time, and some of the best most watchable movies most people would agree. I don't have the Disney channel and I just ordered blu-rays of the Mandalorian and The Book of Boba Fett and looking forward to finally watching those shows.

Israel ordered and carried out the bombing of a car carrying the leader of Hamas back a few years ago, that also had his grandkids in it. I saw the video of it. It's on youtube.

He makes things up.

This reminds me of you

Amos 9:15 New International Version 15 I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the Lord your God.

Stop asking stupid questions. Your questions include falsehood statements within them.

Pfizer has enough money to do all of the research they have planned already.

That's not the cause and effect of this.

His description includes you. You know you're dumb.

How much focking money do you want to go to the Pharmaceutical Companies? https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/05/pfizer-pfe-q2-2025-earnings-report.html

True Centrists side with the right; that's why Trump was elected President again.

I actually quit being a Dallas Cowboys fan, before this year's draft, I decided I'm done with that team.

When our grandmas and great aunts died there was no one left to purchase Anne of Green Gables to keep PBS alive.

This is what I was going to post.

So many geriatrics in n Congress.

Great movie. Quality alternate ending proposal.

@The Real timschochet Strike said duly elected government, not legitimate government. Your definition of legitimate government could be questioned, but putting that aside, why don't you answer the question as it was posed?

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.

I'm excited to cheer on the Cornhuskers.