I hate to resort to calling the EPA malicious, because I want to believe that they think that what they are doing is right, but, seriously, that's the only alternative. They certainly aren't trying to _actually_ clean up the air, since worse offenders than the USA already exist and won't be affected by this law at all.

Come the fuck on. You cannot honestly believe that the US government, which depends on tax revenue from American businesses and their employees, would intentionally handicap said businesses? To what end? Stop trying to turn a legitimate difference of opinion into some sort of battle between good and evil.

As far as the "worse offenders" go, the EPA doesn't exactly have jurisdiction over other countries, so it's a moot point. You're presenting an imaginary alternative -- that the EPA could somehow regulate greenhouse gases in China, India, etc. -- as some sort of evidence that this is only intended to bankrupt the EPA's revenue stream? Get a grip.

VZ and AT&T helped to invest in new phones by giving money to Apple and RIM in exchange for exclusive agreements.We're now in a market cycle where people want a good phone that can do everything since coverage is about the same everywhere.Sprint and T-Mobile are screwed because they cater to bottom feeders and now they're complaining. they want the new phones without paying to develop them.

Huh? Where is Sprint complaining? They still get exclusives, and the people complaining are consumer advocates and government anti-trust regulators.

Sprint's answer was to fund the Pre which is still in beta. no wonder no one was allowed to see it before launch.

Yes, and that's why Apple kept the iPhone a secret too, right? In the real world -- beyond your conspiracy theories -- consumers are getting screwed and complaining, and at least someone in government is listening. This has nothing to do with how well Sprint or T-Mobile is doing or who their customers are.

average human body produces about 100g of CO2 per hour (about 40g is from breathing)

...which is less than 1% of the CO2 that a 50MPG car produces while traveling down the highway.

And there are only the tiniest of social programs that the Chinese government spends its money on and pretty much nothing on entitlements which make up 2/3 of the US's federal budget. There is no institutionalized 'somebody owes me' mentality keeping a large number of otherwise able bodied adults out of the workforce.

...and about 2/3 of those entitlements are going to retirees. Let's get those lazy old people off their asses!

"Does anyone else think that $50,000 is a hell of a lot of money to pay for a car?" No, not really. Not for a cutting edge...early adopter technology no.

The question isn't "is it expensive compared to what you get?" The question is "is it expensive compared to what the average family could afford?" Of course you can abstractly say that an office chair that made you espresso and gave you handjobs would be worth $10000, but that doesn't make it affordable. The US median annual household income is around the cost of a Model S. When someone says that it "costs too much," it's not about some retarded class warfare/rich-hating, it's because they have no reasonable way to afford owning one.

What if their child gets indoctrinated into homosexual lifestyle?

Yeah, that's really not how it works...

discharges into lakes and streams

You might want to get that checked out...

Do you really think that Apple isn't up to the task of adding a 4th, 5th, 6th in a reasonably short period of time?

Of course they could do it, it's just that offering an existing product (OS X for x86) is not the same as offering the more-costly option of porting it to another platform. There's no reason to believe that Jobs' offer would have implied that they were willing to spend the engineering dollars required to port OS X to whatever platform OLPC decides to use.