Now THIS is the kind of post I welcome.  Intelligent.  I don't mind being proven wrong, because heck, I like being correct, even if I need to be corrected first!

You can cite your source, right?  Seriously, I am interested in being as informed as I can about this, I'm not trying to discredit you or anything.  

I appreciate the intelligent response.

im actually quite unimpressed by the arguments on both sides of this issue.  i am incensed myself to no ends by liberals who squeal over drilling for oil in alaska and what it might do to wildlife all the while driving a car that gets 12 miles to the gallon.  just as absurd are these so called conservatives on this board who rail against the middle east and yet firmly assert that their right is to be as wasteful as they want at the expense of shieks in saudi arabia and scumbags elsewhere who turn this money right back into terrorist capital.  i for one buy into the whole buy drugs/buy oil support a terroist idea.  if i buy herion, if i buy petroleum products- yes i am indeed supporting scum of the earth people who despise america and cunningly use our great wealth in the fight against us.  does this mean i walk everywhere? have a hybrid car? no.  both of these are impractical for living in a large metropolitan city.  however, i refuse to fund this sand scum any more than i absolutely have to... i woul love to see them reduced back to what they were before the large scale worldwide dependence on petroleum... [b]NOTHING![/b]  my cars must get at least 30 mpg on the highway! which is not to say that often times i have to rely on rentals, or others vehicles to navigate off road or uneven terrain.  in no way do i think that smaller fuel efficient vehicles are for everyone... but for 99% of city slickers like me [b]THEY ARE[/b] do i ever want/need a truck or suv? yes. is it worth the extra $$$ out of my pocket and into the hands of oil producing countries that i despise? NO! not to mention the risk that SUV's pose to other vehicles on the road.  i would love to drive an even smaller car than i have now (since i mostly drive alone or with one passenger) but there is almost no way that i would survive a collision with 75% of the vehicles on the road... soccer moms in their HUMMERS and LAND ROVERS? WHY?

Why?  The same right that allows you to drive an econobox protects their choice as well.  If we want to make everyone safer, why don't we try putting everyone into bigger safer cars?

Why don't we utilize our own oil reserves, why don't we drill offshore?  We could supply our own needs easily.

Know why we don't?  The same liberals who are running these ads are prohibiting us from weening ourselves from foreign oil.  As Wiggy762 said, the terrorist connection is overstated anyway.

The environment has never been cleaner, and the roads have never been safer.  Want to be even safer still?  Get people out of those little deathtraps that they drive.

Put me in a Ford F250 driving around town, and some asshole, who does not know what red means, broad side me, I am going to walk away. Do I have cause to be concerned, hell yes, Tucson is 5th or 6th in the nation for redlight running. The bigger the vehicle the safer I feel. If I could, I would be driving an M1a1 tank, unfortunately I do not qualify for this vehicle. IMHO people get pissed because they can not afford to buy them, yes these are actors coming out against it and saying use of these vehicles support terrorism, but they have to have some cause to fight. Since they no longer have a president who makes policy based on what they say, they have to go after the soccer moms and dads.

BTW in case you have not guessed, if I want to "waste" my money and drive SUV's in town, I will. Now flame away at me now.

If these people had 1/2 a brain, they would boycott the fuel source.  Ban fuel from countries giving money to terrorists.

Stupid Stupid Stupid!

Don't worry, we'll have plenty of oil in six months! [;)]
I thought Ms. Huffington was a conservative.  I guess not all the way.
I support everyone getting the vehicle they want, and a lot of people get large vehicles for their safety, but a lot of people are buying trucks for the wrong reasons.

My father, who is totally convinced that larger vehicles are safer, bought a simple vinyl-bench-seated pickup truck in the early seventies because at the time, it was about the cheapest vehicle he could buy to get to work.  Today mileage hasn't increased much on similar trucks and they have gotten to the price of luxury cars.

If you go offroad for hunting, hiking, fishing or whatever, a "SUV" (I hate calling them that), is a good choice as a vehicle.  If you pull a large trailer of any kind or a boat, it's almost impossible to find a car that has enough towing capacity to do the job safely, so a truck is the choice here also.

It's only been since vehicle makers added four doors and improved the interiors that people have gone to using trucks.  There aren't many station wagons anymore.  Mini vans can be cramped and can't tow that much.

I just think there are a lot of people buying them to "keep up with the Jones'" who are better served by a higher gas mileage, cheaper, car.  But that's [i]their[/i] choice.  A lot of people in war climates who never go offroad or launch a boat at a slippery, algae-covered ramp are buying four wheel drive vehicles, and for the extra cost, and some extra maintenance, they could buy something else with that extra cash.

At least some liberals, like actor/activist Ed Begley Jr. have been putting their cash where their mouths are and are buying vehicles like the electrics.  Most are hypocrites, and drive large gas guzzlers or ride in the back of limos.

How would we do this?  It would require more socialist programs, government subsidies?  We can't if you want to remain a free, capitalistic society.




Some good points, Torf.  It wouldn't surprise me about the liberals not letting us wean from foreign oil.  And the terrorist connection, I think they are overstating them.  (I never said I agreed with those whiney bastards in the article, but it, to some extent, seemed feasible)

I think the environment is looking better, because big industrial pollution is under much better control.  The larger contributers to pollution are no longer a major concern.   I do think that cars, although maybe not the biggest environmental concern, are definitely not a GOOD thing for the environment.  I am the type that generally likes to side with caution, so making emissions better, and reducing the consumption of fuel can't be a bad thing, even if it's not BAD the way it is.  

Funny how some people will shoot someone through the lungs for merely suggesting that they don't "need" that extra firearm, but are perfectly willing to dictate somone else's "need" for an SUV.

I'll drive whatever the ^%$&* I want to drive, thank you very much. You got a problem with that, you're welcome to try and take it away from me, but I suggest you have your life insurance paid up first.

Sin is sin!

If you buy any "Gas related" product then you are supporting the Arab's![soapbox]

Do I need an SUV? Yes I do!

I wish it got 30-40 MPG but not at the expense of having a weak a$$ POS vehicle that could not pull itself out of it's own track's![nono]

If all I could do is bitch about every little thing in the USA then I would load up and move to the Middle East or England![nuts]

Do I need an AR15? By your liberal a$$ definition's...No![BS2]

Do I need an AR15? By my "God Given Right's" of the Constitution and the United State's of America...Yes I do![sniper2]

The liberal Enviromentalist's have forced us to rely on "Foreign Oil" more than we should ever have...But "The People" elected the liberal Democrat's so all of us are stuck with the consequences![banghead]

If you really want to stop "Funding Terrorist" sell all you car's etc. and get a bicycle to ride![ROFL]

Big(ThankGodIHaveTheRightToDriveAnSUV!)Dozer66

my brother is a paramedic firefihter and said the accidents that he fears responding to the most are SUV related collisions.  he has related to me numerous stories of SUV drivers rearending passenger cars and riding up the rear and crushing rear passengers including children in baby-seats.  im not saying this to appeal to the "for the children" crowd. merely the observation that the "as long as I'm not hurt" mentality of some SUV drivers makes the burden of responsible driving in these vehicles that much more important.  yet, evertime i have genuinely feared for my life on the road it has been because of the poor driving of SUV drivers.  distractions abound, from cell phones to the screaming soccer crew to poor visibility from extended lengths (bindspots)and towing large items to execssive speed to things as rediculous as dash mounted video systems!  i welcome the surge in sales of station wagons as they are more practical and appropriate for the driving conditions that most of these people will encounter.  don't get me started as i have seen real SUV's spanked offroad by subarus and vehicles such as the audi allroad so the compromise is negligible.  add to this the higher center of gravity of these vehicles, the decreased turning radius, weight and at 95 on the highway this is often a recipie for disaster...
for what?
going offroad every third saturday to show that you can? the one yearly ski trip to colorado? your buddys lease?

again im not saying that SUV's aren't for all people, just that they aren't for most people... especially where i live!

If an SUV driver drives recklessly because they feel invincible, then they should be charge with reckless driving.

If, however, someone chooses to drive a Yugo instead of an Expedition, and they get slammed, then it's their own fault for not purchasing the most protective vehicle they could afford.

...and if they CAN'T afford it, tough. I can't afford one right now, either, but you don't hear me demanding everyone else give up theirs.

Not necessairly.  If small cars were simply made illegal, then the markey would eventually decide how much large safe cars would cost.  Carmakers would have to compete to offer a less expensive vehicle.  Do you know where most of the cost of an SUV is?  The markup.  By eliminating the demand for substitute goods, the demand for low-trim, inexpensive SUV's would go up.  Sure you could still get a loaded Navigator, but now you could get the equivalent of an old Ford Bronco II.  No frills, just the essentials.

Of course I don't advocate this.  I want anyone to be able to choose...



Of course!  Despite our buying large gas-guzzling vehicles, technology is making everything cleaner and safer.  Like you said, there are far worse polluters than cars anyway.  Even natural sources of pollution make up over 98% of the pollution on earth.  If cars make up only 10% of the 2% of man made pollution, then what is the point in trying to make it better?  We have hit the point of diminshing returns.

These Anti-SUV people are attacking freedom and capitalism.  It is easy to buy into their agenda because it sounds so true.  After all, everyone knows that trucks don't blow fresh air!  That is when people lose their minds and start demonizing other drivers for their particular choices, regardless of the junk science or fallatious logic behind it.

If I had the option to choose a gasoline source that had no terrorist ties I'd be willing to pay a premium for it.

Thanks,


The quickest source was from 1996 Energy Information Administration - form EIA-814;
(in millions of barrels)

Source of US Imports

Canada       1058
Far East      156
Mexico       1207
Central &
South Am.   1781
N. Sea        509
Africa       1219
            ____
(total)      5930

Middle
East        1522

Raw data indicates 26% of the US 1996 oil imports were from the middle east region. I'll admit that this is not 8%, but look further. If the totals for the middle east region were further split to indicate which country supplied which amount and then you eliminated those Middle East countries we consider allies, (Qatar, Bahrain, etc.) that do not support terror......what would the percentage be? I am looking for this data but have not been successful, yet.

Even if the total percentage is greater than the 8%, it cannot be over the 26% total from the region. You can see that the argument of supporting terror by buying gasoline is full of shit.

This is typical liberal media soundbyte, ADD infested, sensational reporting-with-an-agenda crap that they are constantly spewing. A person could spend their entire life just debunking the bullshit produced by these hacks.

People need to question everything....everything.

I for one won't even touch the whole, you don't "need" thing, that is a nazi term.

Like others have brought up, how can we blame gas sucking SUV's when almost ANY product that needs to be self powered is gas powered.

Doesn't that seem alittle backwards?

Also, if you NEED an SUV, do what I did, compromise!
Buy a mid sized SUV like a blazer or something.
Hauls around 5 in comfort, back seat folds down so there's tons of room to haul stuff (no dirt or the like though), it has a decent V6 and 4 wheel drive.

It does EVERYTHING a large SUV would do for most people!!

Nice article by David Kopel on the comparison:

[b]Taking it to the streets[/b]
[url]reason.com/9911/fe.dk.taking.shtml[/url]

I love it!  Thanks ckapsl.

And "Assault Weapons" should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include punching paper. [rolleyes]
Given that the vast majority of the world population gets by without a car at all, a lot of us would be hard pressed to really justify a NEED for even a Geo Metro.

TXLewis,

It's not a progressive tax, as you can pay less tax by driving less.  It's actually an appropriate use tax.  A progressive tax would be to charge more gas tax on a vehicle that consumes more gas.