Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/8/2003 4:37:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 4:41:07 PM EST by Nick]
Heard about on my local news radio KNX1070.. I guess a "green" group is going to air ad in LA NY and Detroit, Stating If you use use more gas many terrorist harboring oil producing wil get richer.. I guess the group is called Detroit...something. But how about this terror fighting SUV [:D] [img]http://autoshow.msn.com/autoshow2003/photos/S_Army-front.jpg [/img] [url]http://autoshow.msn.com/autoshow2003/article.aspx?xml=Army[/url] Edited 'cus I'm stupid
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 4:41:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 4:42:20 PM EST by DigDug]
Yup, I heard about this today also. Stupidest thing I have ever heard. Groups like this have to say the most outragous things so they get press. People should just ignore them. Edit: Maybe we should open up some of our own oil reserves instead of sending our money over for terrorists? Enviromental groups support terror more than SUV's do.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 4:53:34 PM EST
The guy who made the commercial was on Fox news. Was asked what kind of car he drove. Stated a Mecades Benz for now, but was trying to find an electric/hybred to buy. These people have no credibilty and are some of the worst offenders when it comes to using and abusing the enviro.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:02:59 PM EST
Of course they support terrorists. That being said... We need a 5 day waiting period, background checks, and no hi-cap gas tanks.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:13:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 5:15:48 PM EST by Matthew_Q]
I really hate those environmentalist nutcases. Most of the time they're just raving lunatics. Now, some people here might confuse me for one of them, because of the car I choose to drive. I got it because I like the technology, and going three weeks on one tank of gas just kicks ass. Low emissions are a bonus. After driving around Los Angeles a few months ago, seeing how bad the smog is there, one has to agree that there IS a problem, and complacency isn't going to help much. But you really gotta ask yourself if you choose to drive an SUV, or similar vehicle. Does driving the vehicle with the absolute WORST gas economy really help the situation?
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:18:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 5:18:59 PM EST by DigDug]
Matthew_Q, Don't you just love living in america where you can drive whatever vehicle you want, and if other people complain about it you can tell them to STFU? Isn't that great? [:D]
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:23:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 5:37:33 PM EST by Matthew_Q]
Digdug, Yeah, it's great. Everyone has the right to choose, but we also have the right to call eachother wastefully mindless to our world for our choices. But resorting to calling names really means we're not thinking, just beating our chests. I ask a serious, thought provoking question. Oil IS a finite resource, regardless of where it comes from. If you haven't driven in some place like LA, where the smog gets so thick, you can't see but a couple miles, you might not realize how bad smog and pollution can get. I certainly wouldn't have thought it so bad since it's so clear where I live. We're at a 27 year low for average fuel economy of the vehicles we buy. Technology has gone leaps and bounds in that time, but do our vehicles still need to be so neanderthal?
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:36:11 PM EST
Matthew_Q, Supply and demand, my man, supply and demand.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:44:46 PM EST
I work in broadcast TV, and have been contemplating making some mock "drugs support terrorist" commercials myself. This sounds like a good mockery of those very commercials I despise. My idea was more to make one along the lines of "War on drugs support terrorist" this is Mary. This is the joint mary smoked. This is the dealer that sold the joint to mary who smoked it. This is the smuggler who got the dope to the dealer who sold the joint to mary who smoked it. This is the cartel who made the drugs that the smuggler brought to the dealer who sold the joint to mary who smoked it. This is the family that the cartel killed so that they could make the drugs to give to the smuggler to sell to the dealer so he could sell the joint to mary who somked it. This is the Government who outlawed marijuana that caused the price of drugs to skyrocket so that the cartel feels it's worth their while to kill a family so that it can grow the drugs, to give to the smuggler, who supplies the dealer who sells the joint that mary smoked. War on drugs support terror...
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:51:51 PM EST
Digdug, true. Very true. But we will reap what we sow. I would just absolutely hate it if where I live becomes like LA. Days so smoggy you can't see but a mile or two. The sun blurred by the haze. Wheezing and irritated eyes. Being told it's not healthy to be outside. It is simple supply and demand. But the average American consumer is ignorant, or at best, willingly overlook long term consequences so they can drive what's 'in'. The auto industry, and most other industries, will simply keep selling what people buy. The auto industry would keep us driving vehicles that get 10-20mpg forever, because we'll keep buying them. We'd dig our own graves, thinking there's nothing better out there. The belief that vehicles cannot be made better, to get better economy and better emissions, is what people believed when it was said that noone would ever need a harddrive larger that 20MB. We make leaps and bounds in every peice of technology ever invented, yet most of our vehicles use decades old technology. If the auto industry would make an SUV that got 30mpg, people would buy it. The problem is, people buy what is available regardless, so nothing will change unless there is some stimulus. I think Hybrid vehicles are part of that stimulus. My car proves it can be done, and to great effect. It may not be practical, being a small two seater, but it's a first generation. Acura (Honda) is planning a four door sedan hybrid that puts 400HP to the ground, and gets 40+mpg. Put that powertrain in an SUV, and get outstanding mileage. Would you buy it? I sure as hell would, if I wanted an SUV. Anyway... I want to provoke some though, and thoughful discussion, not namecalling and chest-beating.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 5:58:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 6:02:40 PM EST by DigDug]
Matthew_Q, I would not buy anything that uses electricity for power. I live in a climate that is NOT hospitable to batteries and electric power. You get stranded here with dead batteries, the batteries won't be the only things dead. Small engines (mowers, weed whackers, ...) give off more pollutant than cars do now. When a volcano erupts someplace in the world, more pollutants are expelled in that moment than have been produced since humans started using internal combustion engines.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:11:51 PM EST
My pickup burns more gas than your pickup.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:15:07 PM EST
That's all so fucking stupid. I think I'll go out and wash my Range Rover and F250 and then cut their fuel lines and burn all the rubber parts then do it again first thing in the morning.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:16:22 PM EST
Digdug, Very true. The hybrid vehicle or pure electric isn't the be-all-and-end-all - like you mention, in certain climates, batteries certainly do not fare well. IC engines even need help (block heaters, and such) in extreme conditions. Fuel cell electric vehicles may be in our future, and I don't think we know quite yet how fuel cells will behave in different climates. Time will tell. For the majority of us, we won't face such adverse conditions normally. I agree that our small engine devices like lawnmowers and weed whackers and such do put out more pollution per volume of fuel burned than most any automobile, but we burn much more fuel in our automobiles than we do in our weed whackers! [;)] If I recall the average number of miles commuted daily by the average American, it's something like 18 miles. Say that's with an overall average of about 20MPG. That's roughly one gallon of gas per day. So around 5 gallons a week, which would be 20 gallons a month, and this doesn't include weekends, which could add a few gallons to that. The average lawn mower can mow the average postage stamp size lot several times over on one gallon of gas. So say that a lawn mower puts out as much pollution burning one gallon as the average car does burning 10 gallons. Given the average person uses around 50 gallons a month, the car puts out 5 times more pollution. These numbers are by no means scientific, of course, they're just for though [;)] Thinking about volcanoes and other natural things like that, well, we can't control those things, now can we? We CAN control our technology. Our vehicles can be made better, and more efficient. We have the technological know-how. Again, I hope I'm provoking a little thought, guys! [:D]
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:17:49 PM EST
I think buying SUV's is indirectly supporting terrorism. This is nothing like the Anti-Drug commericals since you always can say back to the government, "Hey, legilize most drugs and you don't have the problems you speak of!" Look, those people in the Middle East support terrorism agaist the U.S.. They get most of their money from oil. The U.S. is the largest buyer of oil on the internation market. Yes, we buy oil from Canada, Mexico and South America too. However, if the Government stated that cars had to get at least 30 or 35 MPG then we could stop sending our money to the Middle East and only send it to countries that liked us. We could wash our hands of the whole Middle East and be done with them. Yes, Iraq and terrorism would still be a problem, but that's it. We could stop defending the Saudi Arabia and all those other countries that hate us (They'll hate us no matter what we do, their just assholes.) Pollution would decrease, and as a country, we would be stronger. The only problem with all this is that some stupid hippies said it first, and that is what pisses people off. Good message, wrong messenger. The other thing that anonys me is that Congress has block any farther discussion of CAFE Standards (Forgot what it stands for, but it has to do with MPG and Cars). That's right, Congress won't even fund the research and discussion of the benefits of higher mileage cars. Since that happened, the average MPG of new cars has flatlined. Without the research into the benefits, manufactures won't be forced to make cars with higher MPG. As for the argument that Hybrid Cars suck, I disagree. I have driven a few of them and they have many good quailities: good pickup, good top speed and great gas milage. They are not gutless like the older models plus some states give you a fat rebate if buy one (California being one).
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:28:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 6:29:23 PM EST by Matthew_Q]
Mr Mullen, I think you're right... The right message, but the wrong messenger. I feel that if we became independant of mid-east oil, we could just wash our hands of them, and let them slip back into the dark ages! I think most of us here would LOVE to see that! I have been thinking about this for a while tonight: I am politically conservative, and I am also environmentally conservative. I think the two can go hand in hand, and this is how I think of it: I don't think there's anyone here who wouldn't take up arms and lay down their lives to defend this great nation we love. But why would we do it? What would the benefit be for us to fight and die to defend our nation? - Our children. And their children, and so on. We want our country, and our way of life to carry on beyond our deaths. This will be through our children. So we want to leave a great nation to our children. What about the environment? We have to leave that to our children, too. How could we be politically conservative, but be environmentally wasteful? How great a nation would it be, if some years in the future, our children and grandchildren couldn't breathe the air outside? Sure, that's a little extreme view of how it may be, but why do we just blow it completely off, and not worry about it? We will leave this country, and this planet to our children. Why be conservative about one, and not the other?
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:29:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By Mr_Mullen:I think buying SUV's is indirectly supporting terrorism
View Quote
[rolleyes]
Originally Posted By Mr_Mullen:Look, those people in the Middle East support terrorism agaist the U.S.. They get most of their money from oil. The U.S. is the largest buyer of oil on the internation market. Yes, we buy oil from Canada, Mexico and South America too. However, if the Government stated that cars had to get at least 30 or 35 MPG then we could stop sending our money to the Middle East and only send it to countries that liked us. We could wash our hands of the whole Middle East and be done with them.
View Quote
Or what if we used the oil[size=6]WE HAVE RIGHT HERE IN THE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/size=6] Are you people jackasses or is it just me,I'm told what guns I can have what land I can own what school to send my kid to and now what car or truck to drive......good luck!
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 6:39:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 6:40:26 PM EST by DigDug]
Matthew_Q, There is more to this nation than the cities. You need to get out in to the country a little more. Also, I saw a study on small engines vs car engine pollutant output. The small stuff puts out more pollutants in the order of 100x or 1000x or more 10000x rather than 10x. Also, CO2 is not a pollutant, as the wacko's would have us believe. Remember, the world was a much much warmer place in the past without human intervention. The effects of volcano's and other natural events can not be ignored. Remember Mt St. Helen? Remember entire states covered in black clouds? Try that with a car. I do think we should stop depending on middle eastern oil, but not because of environmental issues.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 7:16:09 PM EST
I think "average" mileage for a vehicle is 12-15K miles a year. the "average" 30mpg "save the environment" person is using 400+ gallong of gasoline a year. I drive a gas-guzzling (13mpg to and from work) SUV... but yet I've put 3328 miles on it since Feb 4, 2002. And a little over 500 miles of that was because I decided to be the driver for our family thanksgiving trip to the grandparents. So... if I put 3500 miles a year on my gas guzzler... I'm wasting 50% less fuel than the average "save the whaler" this last year w/ my "supporting terrorism super gas guzzling machine". If people want to whine and moan, they better not be driving around much, regardless of what kind of gas mileage they're getting. And no, I'm not an environmentalist... I just live less than 2 minutes from my work, and close to friends/store/movies/etc.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 7:20:37 PM EST
This is the biggest load of bullshit bukshot has ever heard. (well, not the BIGGEST, but certainly a load of shit) Driving SUV's supports terrorism??? Fuck no! All this is is an excuse for those GOD DAMNED green-peace fuckers to get attention. "go little! use less gas!" i will continue to *proudly* drive my v10 f-350 diesel, and provoke those damned green-peacers in the hybrids to a fit of rage. I hate people that think up crocks of shit such as this. ^^First thoughts that came into my head. Well if you want the real explanation, here it comes. We are NOT supporting terrorists by buying oil. Yes, there are a number of companies that get their oil from over seas (mostly in the middle east), but that does not directly fund terrorists for one reason. Two, there are a number of companies (those that slip my mind) that extract oil from the US of A and sell it here.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 7:27:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By Oslow: My pickup burns more gas than your pickup.
View Quote
LMAO! lol i dont know why but somehow, in light of all the seriousness here, I found it amusing. *wipes tear from eye laughing so hard*
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 7:58:47 PM EST
Push 5 buttons, GAS FIFTY CENTS A GALLON. Push 10 buttons, GAS FREE AT THE PUMPS. F.T.M.F.C.S.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:05:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 8:07:20 PM EST by SFC_Rick]
I love my BIG SUV, Sports car, and Big V-8 powered offshore boat. Oil, it's the fossil fuel thats renewable, we keep planting people by the millions each year.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:05:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 8:14:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 8:20:25 PM EST by Dave_A]
Well... Here's my take... I hate SUVs, but from a 'they're butt ugly, and they handle like crap' perspective... If you want to drive one, and you're willing to pay the price, more power to you. Of course, you will make my Trans Am's fuel economy seem stellar, but... Using oil isn't 'supporting terrorisim', it's a fact of life with the technology we have now (and if we handle Iraq right, the oil money won't be going anywhere near terror supporters (but into the 'new' Iraq's economy)... As for hybrid cars, they may be a 'reality', but they're still very impractical. Weather aside, there are serious maintanance issues (unless you like to pay your dealer for everything)... All that extra high-tech electric crap is going to be a pain to work on. I can easily figure out how to replace (insert-mechanical-part-here) in my V8. I can get parts anywhere (hey, it's only the most ubiquitous engine design in the US), and there's no shortage of parts available. What do you bet the parts for these things will be astronomically expensive (parts for conventional import cars sure are), and hard to obtain. Not a big deal if you're used to paying your dealer mechanic $800 to change a $35 heater core, but for someone who does their own work, not good... Second, rechargable batteries don't last forever (3-5yrs is 'normal' for most varieties), and they are VERY expensive (a good estimate for new bats would probably be 1.5-3k - You can get a whole new 350cid ENGINE for 3-4k (not including installation, but my battery estimate didn't, either)). Whereas I can expect 15-20yrs from my 'gas guzzling V8', I cannot expect a set of rechargable batteries to last that long... And as for a ****400 HP**** hybrid sedan, yeah right... 400HP is Corvette/Viper territory, not 4-door land (although you can get a 300HP Cadillac...), and I sincerely doubt the company known for (bragging about) the 185hp Civic would make a sedan with 400, let alone as a hybrid... If you have a link, please post it... Of course, this is just me, and I like my cars as mechanically simple as possible (I.e. 'why boost a 4-cyl to 275HP when you can just build a V8 that runs 275+ without the boost)... When your electric/hybrid car can (a) beat my T/A in the quarter mile, (b) be purchased for $23-28k new (my definition of 'reasonable new car price', as that's what a new 'bird would have cost me this (last that they were made) year), (c) last 15-20yrs without needing new batteries, or other easily-worn-out expensive parts not found in a normal car, and (d) be repairable in my driveway using the same tools I use to work on my normal car with replacement parts that cost about the same, then I'll think about one... Untill then, I'll keep my (gas guzzling) V8...
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 2:20:39 AM EST
The problem I have with it, is it came from Hollywood, Arianna Huffington to be exact. Excuse me, but before anyone gives up SUV's why don't THEY give up limo's? Or oversized houses? etc. etc. SUV's do polute more than other vehicles on a mile per mile, or run time basis. So? Who should be making decisions on what people drive? Maybe the people doing the driving. Then again, as people pointed out oil had a finite supply. The oil that is in the US can't supply our needs. We should stopp pumping it now, so when the Mid-East runs out we still have some. So if you drive an SUV, have fun. But don't whine when gas prices go up. You mad your choice, live with it.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 3:00:48 AM EST
Arianna Huffington gave up her SUV. Not that I agree with her.
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: The problem I have with it, is it came from Hollywood, Arianna Huffington to be exact. Excuse me, but before anyone gives up SUV's why don't THEY give up limo's?
View Quote
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 3:08:49 AM EST
The logic in the argument is stupid. If you own an SUV, you support terrorism because of the gas it consumes. Well, what about all the econoboxes out there? They burn gas. Gas is a petroleum product. What about all the people who crank up the AC in the summertime? They support terrorists, too, because the electric companies have to find a way to support the electrical load - and they do it with petroleum. People who heat their houses in the winter support terrorists when they use heating oil to do it. People who fly planes support terrorists, too, if you follow this logic. Retail stores as well, since their merchandise arrives on a truck. But here's an argument that I think would shoot this one down, [b]even if you were a liberal.[/b] If excess petroleum usage was supporting terrorism, then [b][red]every man who has ever buggered another man and used Vaseline as a lubricant is guilty of doing the same.[/red][/b]
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 3:18:16 AM EST
This Country is SOOOO in need of an enema.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 3:41:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By USNJoe_Retired: Arianna Huffington gave up her SUV. Not that I agree with her.
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: The problem I have with it, is it came from Hollywood, Arianna Huffington to be exact. Excuse me, but before anyone gives up SUV's why don't THEY give up limo's?
View Quote
View Quote
I know she says she gave up the SUV. What did she replace it with? A Linclon Town Car? A limo? Im't thinking that it wasn't a Toyota Camry. I would also take issue with her if she still lives in a large house, which im sure she does. Her heat, electricty, and car use probably produces far more polluntants than my use. Even if I had an SUV I would still be responsible for less enegry use, because I am ver sure I have a miniscule house, lawn, etc compared to her. She is using a gargauntuan amount of energy whatever she drives, because she has a much different lifestyle than MOST of the Country.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 3:52:53 AM EST
Dave_A Ask and ye shall receive. This car would bend your Trans Am over it's knee and spank it like a redhead stepchild. 400hp, and still gets 42mpg. [url]http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&content_code=00305601&Search_Type=[/url] Yes, it is just a concept, but it's entirely possible with technology that's available. Yes, it's an Acura, so it will likely be pretty damn pricey. It will likely be pricey because it's considered a sports car (by it's manufacturer) It is new technology, and as we know, prices go down. Heck, remember those 20MHz 286 computers that cost $8000? What does a good, kick-ass computer cost now? Less than $1000. Another drawback that I freely admit to about hybrid vehicles, is that they are a stop-gap technology. There will likely be better pure electric vehicles in the future. Fuel cells may become a viable power source. I do not think that we will move away from pure fossil fuel vehicles any time in our lifetimes. There are many vehicles in which regular gas/deisel will be the most practical. Practical for commuting? IMHO, no. Practical for actually doing WORK, yes (towing, hauling people/equiment/cargo). Should the govt affect your choice of vehicle? No. Noone's saying don't drive an SUV. Noone's suggesting banning them (at least not here, but those whackos from the original post might be). I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm asking you guys to think about it, think about newer technologies. Think about whether or not the auto industry can make those vehicles better, or if you will all remain complacent and blindly buy whatever they feed you.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 4:12:05 AM EST
So should I trade my U.S. made, big block, gas guzzling truck in on a Kia or Honda?
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 4:18:29 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 4:46:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/9/2003 4:58:10 AM EST by JAFO]
Just wanted to elaborate a little on my statement... I am simply saying that not buying an SUV is not the answer. If we don't want to support terrorism, we must not only cut down on imported fuel use, but cut down on any imports. 30% of Japan's export is to the U.S. 18% of their import is from the U.S. China has similar numbers. Do they use oil? Where do they get it? If we want to make sure that none of our dollars goes to terrorism, then we have to keep our dollars at home. I am not anti-trade. I fully support even trade. If you buy a Honda or Toyota that gets better mileage, do you think you aren't supporting terrorism more than someone who bought a U.S. made SUV? I'm not so sure about that. You can say "well, my Honda was built in Marysville, OH." Sure, that's great. Some assembly line workers live here. How much upper, or even mid or lower management is composed of U.S. nationals? How many of the dollars stay here? I'm not trying to criticize anyone who drives a foreign car. I like them myself. I'm just saying, don't go around saying you support the U.S. more, or terrorism less, because you have one. There are many many numbers and facts out there. I'm not going to sift through them to make my statement more valid. That would be a lot of work, and I'm not getting paid for it ;) Just use a little common sense when criticizing people. Just my opinion :) Edited to add: PS - Being an unemployed aerospace/automotive/heavy duty truck CAD Designer, I fully support the domestic development of electric/alternative fuel vehicles. :)
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 9:09:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/9/2003 9:26:19 AM EST by Oslow]
Gasohol You can use a 10-20% mix of ethanol without changing anything in the supply system or fuel systems on vehicles. Nobody would notice the difference except the Arabs. Well, the pollution levels in the cities might go down, but I suppose you could burn some tires or something if the clean air got to you.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 9:40:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/9/2003 9:46:06 AM EST by Nick]
[B]steenkybastage Team AR15.Com I work in broadcast TV, and have been contemplating making some mock "drugs support terrorist" commercials myself. This sounds like a good mockery of those very commercials I despise. My idea was more to make one along the lines of "War on drugs support terrorist" this is Mary. This is the joint mary smoked. This is the dealer that sold the joint to mary who smoked it. This is the smuggler who got the dope to the dealer who sold the joint to mary who smoked it. This is the cartel who made the drugs that the smuggler brought to the dealer who sold the joint to mary who smoked it. This is the family that the cartel killed so that they could make the drugs to give to the smuggler to sell to the dealer so he could sell the joint to mary who somked it. This is the Government who outlawed marijuana that caused the price of drugs to skyrocket so that the cartel feels it's worth their while to kill a family so that it can grow the drugs, to give to the smuggler, who supplies the dealer who sells the joint that mary smoked. War on drugs support terror...[B/] That is what I called "think outside the box"
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 9:42:11 AM EST
[bs2] BigDozer66
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 9:48:49 AM EST
Electric Co.'s use natural gas to generate electricity. Some are even nuclear powered. Up north their are alot of heating oil used but down here in the south we use natural gas or LP-liquid propane. Get an electric car and stop using gas![noclue] A bunch of my friend's work in the oil industry and if we stop using oil they will be out of a job! BigDozer66
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 11:58:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/9/2003 12:06:58 PM EST by nightstalker]
Matthew_Q The effort to introduce alt. fuel vehicles etc should start with Government itself. The legislators should set the example by only allowing subsidies to lawmakers that go along. Police, fire, and other vehicles should be included along with vehicles supplied to the Air Quality Board members. This kind of action would provide the testing of systems and a scale of production that would (if things worked out) get the price, quality, and market factors to the point where the general public can make an informed choice. I'd personally love to see my pols driving a little Prius around instead of an Exhibition or in the back of a limo while on government business. Furthermore, as regards SUVs, they ARE cost effective when full. 8 passengers in an SUV getting 16 mpg is equal to 4 in a Honda Civic getting 32 mpg. Then we have the "Ride Alone and you Ride with Osama" crowd. Riding in the HOV lanes with your 6 year old is not keeping a vehicle off the road. Neither is transporting the elderly or the blind etc. None of these people OWN a car, let alone DRIVE. Choosing and SUV because it is versatile and fills your needs CAN preclude owning 2 cars and save valuable resources and labor, not to mention insurance and other miscellaneous costs. This theory is enlightened self-interest and is a pretty good basis for successful capitalism and this republic.
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 12:07:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/9/2003 12:39:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/9/2003 12:40:27 PM EST by Torf]
SUV? Screw that! I want a plane! A late model Mooney Bravo that gets 15-16 gallons per hour sounds good.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 8:03:56 AM EST
Ah!!! I see. Paying $40 a week for gas for your SUV funds terrorism, but paying $10 a week for gas for your hybrid or econo car does not. Mucking forons!!!!
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 8:44:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sylvan: You can beat your chest and blame others all you want. The more oil you consume, the more profits for the arabs, and the more money funneled directly to those people trying to kill us. Terrorists need money to operate. The US consumer supplies that money every time they tank up. Two ways to stop it. Two, use less gas. As long as money goes to Saudi Arabia, that money will be funding terrorists. Those are the facts, they are not disputed.
View Quote
So, I guess you've gotten rid of your fossil-fuel burning vehicle(s). You've stopped using electricity produced from fossil-fuels. And you've decided to live in a teepee made from logs and animal hides and eat only the food you grow yourself. If so, then I'll listen. Until then, you are one of those "US Consumer[s]" that supplies terrorists with funding every time you enter into almost any transaction. Getting rid of SUV's is not going to make a dent in the terrorist trade. Getting rid of all fossil-fuel powered vehicles may make a dent. Getting rid of all petroleum uses would certainly make a dent, but good luck doing that. If we are concerned with fighting terrorism we should confront the issue head-on. This backdoor let's-stop-funding-terrorists-AND-protect-the-environment-by-eliminating-SUV's is a sorry waste of money and energy. When we come into a terrorist-supporting nation to root out the terrorists, we should come in the front door with guns-blazing, since history shows that is the only thing they respond to. I am all for developing better and more efficient fuel sources. I think there has been a lot of potential development that has been stunted by a reluctant government and a reluctant oil industry. But publicly claiming that SUV drivers are willingly supporting terrorism while driving a gasoline-powered limo and flying all over the US in a jet is a case of the kettle calling the pot black.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:36:10 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/10/2003 11:37:50 AM EST by Energizer]
Not all of our oil comes from the middle east. What about other countries, like Venezuela? Almost everything is made from oil products. Saying an SUV consumes more fuel, so you are supporting more terrorism than so and so, is BULLSHIT. If you think oil supports terrorism, then boycott all oil products and see what you are left with... PS: that's like a drug user saying that drug dealers are the problem since the user is small-potatoes, when in fact, if there were no users, then there would be no dealers since there's no demand.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:46:47 AM EST
Looks like just about everybody missed the point of the commercials. The commercials really weren't about SUVs. The commercials were a parody of the Government's anti-drug ads that claim that drugs support terrorism. (Like alcohol supported terrorism during alcohol Prohibition, but doesn't any longer.) The point was to show how stupid the government's anti-drug ads are. (Perhaps they weren't as good as they could be, because a lot of people seem to have missed it.) How do I know? I know the people who put it together and I knew these ads were coming some months ago. If you think these commercials are pretty stupid because you own or like SUVs, then consider how stupid the governments commercials about "drugs support terrorism" really are. In fact, the terrorists get far more money from oil than they do from drugs. Therefore, by the government's own logic, SUVs contribute more to terrorism than drugs do. And you don't see them making any big complaints about big cars, do you? And before you get too worked up about me bashing SUVs -- I own, drive, and love one myself.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:49:24 AM EST
Originally Posted By Energizer: Not all of our oil comes from the middle east. What about other countries, like Venezuela?
View Quote
And most of the drugs consumed in this country come from places that have no connection with terrorism.
Almost everything is made from oil products. Saying an SUV consumes more fuel, so you are supporting more terrorism than so and so, is BULLSHIT.
View Quote
Yep. Almost as big a pile of bullshit as saying that drug use in America is a significant support of terrorism.
PS: that's like a drug user saying that drug dealers are the problem since the user is small-potatoes, when in fact, if there were no users, then there would be no dealers since there's no demand.
View Quote
Do you expect that there will be any lack of drug users any time in the next thousand years? Discuss it with your friends over a beer or two.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:53:14 AM EST
SUVs do not necessarily burn more gas than other vehicles, including trucks and cars, just because they are SUVs. Some SUVs are basically station wagons. These Hollywood idiots need to pull their head out of their asses-- a lot of them drive SUVs too.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:55:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By wolfman97: Looks like just about everybody missed the point of the commercials. The commercials really weren't about SUVs. The commercials were a parody of the Government's anti-drug ads that claim that drugs support terrorism. (Like alcohol supported terrorism during alcohol Prohibition, but doesn't any longer.) The point was to show how stupid the government's anti-drug ads are. (Perhaps they weren't as good as they could be, because a lot of people seem to have missed it.) How do I know? I know the people who put it together and I knew these ads were coming some months ago. If you think these commercials are pretty stupid because you own or like SUVs, then consider how stupid the governments commercials about "drugs support terrorism" really are. In fact, the terrorists get far more money from oil than they do from drugs. Therefore, by the government's own logic, SUVs contribute more to terrorism than drugs do. And you don't see them making any big complaints about big cars, do you? And before you get too worked up about me bashing SUVs -- I own, drive, and love one myself.
View Quote
So in other words, idiots like Arianna Huffington (I never liked her or was duped into thinking she was consertative) would like to legalize drugs and ban SUV's? Why shouldn't we bash these idiots again?
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 11:56:22 AM EST
Guys, I think this is the gist of the LOGICAL arguement A small percentage of the oil we use comes from the middle east, from Saudi Arabia, and other countries around there. Most of our oil comes from other countries and from domestic sources. From Sylvan's posts in a clone of this thread, the interpolation is, if we can cut our gasoline useage by 15%, we can completely STOP oil imports from the middle east. Only 15%, guys. How can we trim that to put the pinch on the middle east? More fuel efficient vehicles. Don't you want to hit 'em where it hurts? I do, and I do it every day. I use less than 50% of the gas I used to use in my previous vehicle, how about you?
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 12:03:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By Torf: So in other words, idiots like Arianna Huffington (I never liked her or was duped into thinking she was consertative) would like to legalize drugs and ban SUV's? Why shouldn't we bash these idiots again?
View Quote
I think you are still a little confused. From what I know of Ariana Huffington, she doesn't want to ban SUVs -- just to make people aware that the government's arguments about drugs is ridiculous because it would apply more to SUVs. And I am sure she knows that, just because something can be harmful to society (like drugs, SUVs, alcohol, and guns) that doesn't necessarily mean that prohibition is a good approach. As far as legalizing drugs -- every major study of the subject in the last 100 years has said that the drug laws were based on racism, ignorance, and nonsense, and should have been repealed long ago because they do more harm than good.
Link Posted: 1/10/2003 12:05:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q: Guys, I think this is the gist of the LOGICAL arguement A small percentage of the oil we use comes from the middle east, from Saudi Arabia, and other countries around there. Most of our oil comes from other countries and from domestic sources. From Sylvan's posts in a clone of this thread, the interpolation is, if we can cut our gasoline useage by 15%, we can completely STOP oil imports from the middle east. Only 15%, guys. How can we trim that to put the pinch on the middle east? More fuel efficient vehicles. Don't you want to hit 'em where it hurts? I do, and I do it every day. I use less than 50% of the gas I used to use in my previous vehicle, how about you?
View Quote
My wife doesn't work anymore so I cut our gas bill by %50! We decided to make ends meet on one income. Don't ask! It is nothing to brag about. [nana]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top