User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:07:29 AM EDT
[#1]
Worth a good laugh, even though I hate SUV's and their driver's mentalities during shitty weather. I believe SUVs should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include driving to an office job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:12:42 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Worth a good laugh, even though I hate SUV's and their driver's mentalities during shitty weather. I believe SUVs should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include driving to an office job. I agree with you but watch out! Some of the guys here will call you a Nazi socialist bastard for suggesting what they NEED! {edited to add} I do not agree with Balzac in any way that SUVs should be regulated by having their ownership meet some sort of 'need' prerequisite. I only meant that he would get raked over the coals for suggesting it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:13:09 AM EDT
[#3]
So SUV's use a special gas or something?
Thinking about all those times I rented them to go to the mountains and fed it regular unleaded. Silly me, should've used that special SUV grade gas.[thinking] Everybody knows that only the SUV grade fuel funds terrorism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:16:19 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: Worth a good laugh, even though I hate SUV's and their driver's mentalities during shitty weather. I believe SUVs should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include driving to an office job. I agree with you but watch out! Some of the guys here will call you a Nazi socialist bastard for suggesting what they NEED! tHat's so funny it warrants no further comment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:33:15 AM EDT
[#5]
"you are a Nazi socialist bastard for thinking you know what I need" There, I did it.
I need an SUV, and a full-sized truck for my farm/construction work, but I also drive it to my "real" office job. Now I NEED to buy a third car to apease you Nazi SUV haters????? Yeah right. Jimno |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:41:01 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Worth a good laugh, even though I hate SUV's and their driver's mentalities during shitty weather. I believe SUVs should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include driving to an office job. You're a Nazi socialist bastard for suggesting what I need. My recreational activities often involve driving on dirt roads where 4-wheel drive is highly desirable. I don't want to pay for insurance, annual registration, and maintenance on more than one vehicle. Yes, there are a lot of inexperienced or rude or dipshit drivers out there in vehicles of ALL KINDS, but there are also a lot of competent drivers like me who will never cause you any grief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:41:15 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: tHat's so funny it warrants no further comment. Well, it's true. If I said 'you don't need a big ass gas guzzling SUV to drive yourself to work and back. You have no NEED for it', I'd get labeled a Nazi or a Socialist for trying to dictate what you 'need'. Like I've said before, if you have an actual need for an SUV, whether it be towing something heavy, or hauling a lot of stuff or people, more power to you. If you choose to buy a large SUV that sucks a gallon of gas every 15 miles, just to drive yourself to and from your office, it is of my opinion, that that is EXTREMELY wasteful. Waste your own money, and I don't really care. Drive a vehicle that needlessly makes you burn a lot of gas, keeping us more dependant on fossil fuels, i.e., oil imports (some of which come from the middle east), then you're needlessly sending some of that extra money you spend to the middle east. Say you've got a Suburban that gets 15MPG, and you drive the average of 1000 miles per month, just commuting and driving around, etc, without actually towing anything or hauling a buttload of stuff. That's 66.6 gallons of gas. At about $1.50 per gallon, that's $100. Compare to a vehicle that gets 25MPG. 40 gallons used, and only $60 spent. The more efficient vehicle does exactly the same thing, but with the SUV, you're spending $40 MORE on gas. The less money we send to the Arabs, the better, right? So, you CHOOSE to drive an SUV that gets crappy gas mileage. You CHOOSE to spend more $ on gas. You CHOOSE to send more $ to the Arabs. Chain of logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:52:09 AM EDT
[#8]
So if I don't like SUVs, I'm a nazi, right?
If you don't like small, more efficient cars, you must be a nazi, too. Seriously, guys. Noone's saying you can't drive or own an SUV, and noone's saying you HAVE to buy a car to drive when you don't need the SUV. I don't particularly like SUVs. I don't hate them. They can be VERY useful vehicles, for certain uses. They're a good WORK truck, but they are probably the absolute WORST vehicle to get for purely commuting purposes. I don't agree with the 'status symbol' or 'fad' mindset that some people have when they choose to drive these vehicles just to go from the house to the office and back, and nothing else. Guys of you that DO own SUVs and large trucks, you get a lot of usefulness from them, don't you? They tow large loads and are great for less than paved road circumstances, right? Would you not agree then, that you need it, but Joe Corporate, who only drives himself to and from his office, would be wasting the potential of such a vehicle? You have to agree, regardless if you think it's his choice to drive it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:55:11 AM EDT
[#9]
I work at home, as a mortgage broker, and in spite of not having a commute, I drive a 2001 F-250 w/ a V-10 that gets right around 12 miles to the gallon. I drive my truck everywhere I need, running errands, camping, shooting, everywhere. I pay the cost for filling up my truck's 30 gallon tank every time it needs it. I make enough money to pay whatever ridiculous tax or usage fee or other expense associated with my truck.
I also believe in the freedoms to choose what I do and am willing, armed, and able to defend those freedoms against anyone that thinks they should be able to abridge those freedoms. So....if you want to take my truck away from me, come on ahead. It'll be interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 6:59:16 AM EDT
[#10]
I see your point Mathew_Q; but I disagree that we have to prove a "need" before we are allowed to purchase any vehicle.
If I wanted to commute to work in a semi-truck, that is my prerogative, ain't it? Wasteful?, yes. Your business? no. Jimno ps. I don't mean "you" personally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:05:35 AM EDT
[#11]
Owning a SUV is paying a voluntary progressive tax. You use more gas, you pay more fuel tax. Simple as that.
Why do I want my wife in an SUV. Simple, so if she's in an accident, she lives. Don't really care about the others. Let them buy there own suv. If you don't drive a hybrid care, you are a hypocrite about the whole thing anyway. Someone in a geo metro may feel the same way about your full size station wagon. TXLEWIS |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:06:34 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: I see your point Mathew_Q; but I disagree that we have to prove a "need" before we are allowed to purchase any vehicle. If I wanted to commute to work in a semi-truck, that is my prerogative, ain't it? Wasteful?, yes. Your business? no. Jimno ps. I don't mean "you" personally. Don't mind him Jimno, he's on his weekly anti-SUV tirade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:08:10 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: I also believe in the freedoms to choose what I do and am willing, armed, and able to defend those freedoms against anyone that thinks they should be able to abridge those freedoms. So....if you want to take my truck away from me, come on ahead. It'll be interesting. Wiggy, ain't noone here trying to take away anything from anyone. I, and I think the guys here like me, DO NOT, and NEVER WILL support taking anything away from you, or anyone else here. Get over it. Noone's trying to take your truck away from you. Why do you react like that? Because the anti gunner's attitude of not needing something like an AR, usually is followed by the 'noone should be allowed to own them, they should be banned' comment. You guys make the assumption that it's the same when someone doesn't like your vehicle. The furthest I would go in your case is to comment that your truck, your choice is wasteful. All the extra money you spend on gas is extra money that goes out of our country, and a good portion of it is going to go to the middle east. So you choose to send extra money to them. I ain't trying to take it away from you, or have it banned, so get over it. Regardless of freedom of choice, you have to agree it's wasteful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:11:12 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: I see your point Mathew_Q; but I disagree that we have to prove a "need" before we are allowed to purchase any vehicle. If I wanted to commute to work in a semi-truck, that is my prerogative, ain't it? Wasteful?, yes. Your business? no. Jimno ps. I don't mean "you" personally. Ain't noone said you need to prove anything to purchase anything, did they? (edited to add: except Balzac's post, that is, and maybe the terroristic environmentalists, one of which, I am NOT) You guys just love jumping to those assumptions! READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS, and you won't see anything about regulating vehicle purchases based on need. At least not from me. Regardless of your freedom of choice, which I would fight and die for, you would all have to agree that such vehicles, are needlessly wasteful for commuting purposes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:12:41 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: I also believe in the freedoms to choose what I do and am willing, armed, and able to defend those freedoms against anyone that thinks they should be able to abridge those freedoms. So....if you want to take my truck away from me, come on ahead. It'll be interesting. Wiggy, ain't noone here trying to take away anything from anyone. I, and I think the guys here like me, DO NOT, and NEVER WILL support taking anything away from you, or anyone else here. Get over it. Noone's trying to take your truck away from you. Why do you react like that? Because the anti gunner's attitude of not needing something like an AR, usually is followed by the 'noone should be allowed to own them, they should be banned' comment. You guys make the assumption that it's the same when someone doesn't like your vehicle. The furthest I would go in your case is to comment that your truck, your choice is wasteful. All the extra money you spend on gas is extra money that goes out of our country, and a good portion of it is going to go to the middle east. So you choose to send extra money to them. I ain't trying to take it away from you, or have it banned, so get over it. Regardless of freedom of choice, you have to agree it's wasteful. Why don't you just add the following to your sig line and be done with it: "I think SUV's are wasteful and shame on you for wasting your money". You're beginning to mimick a parrot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:14:28 AM EDT
[#16]
Let's see, where dose it say.....
oh yeah, here it is.... [b]LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF PROPERTY[/b] You have a right to voice your displeasure with my choice of vehicle, but that is where your rights end and my rights begin. I don't drive an SUV and don't hate those that do. If you post on this board and think that you have the right to dictate in any form or fashion what form of vehicle another drives then I suggest that you re-examine your guiding principles or lack there of. [/rant] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:19:25 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Let's see, where dose it say..... oh yeah, here it is.... [b]LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF PROPERTY[/b] You have a right to voice your displeasure with my choice of vehicle, but that is where your rights end and my rights begin. I don't drive an SUV and don't hate those that do. If you post on this board and think that you have the right to dictate in any form or fashion what form of vehicle another drives then I suggest that you re-examine your guiding principles or lack there of. [/rant] Oh but that's just his opinion and he just wants you to know that you're wasting your money. I think his goal at ar15.com is to scold all the SUV operators one at a time, website by website. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:20:25 AM EDT
[#18]
I have the freedom to waste shit as I see fit, and if I want to throw all my money at Abdul in the Texaco station so I can drive an SUV around on flat beautifully paved roads all day long with just li'l ol' me in car towing another two or three empty SUVs, well then, that's my business. Maybe if I get lucky one of these anti SUV freaks will jump in front of my vehicle and my foot can "slip" and hit the "wrong" pedal.
What next, deforestation funds terrorism? Fatty foods supports terrorism? This shit's gettin old fast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:22:08 AM EDT
[#19]
I'm going to chime in here also:
As posted by Balzak and Matthew: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quoted: Worth a good laugh, even though I hate SUV's and their driver's mentalities during shitty weather. I believe SUVs should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include driving to an office job. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with you but watch out! Some of the guys here will call you a Nazi socialist bastard for suggesting what they NEED! I'm afraid I, also, will label you as a Nazi socialist Bastard!!!!!!! What I NEED OR WANT is NONE of your freakin' bidness bud. The more I think of it, the more I really feel that you are, indeed, a: NAZI SOCIALIST BASTARD [:(!] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:22:25 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Why don't you just add the following to your sig line and be done with it: "I think SUV's are wasteful and shame on you for wasting your money". You're beginning to mimick a parrot. I sound the way I do, because discussing this topic with you guys that disagree is like arguing with a 3 year old. I state an opinion, and ask some decent, honest questions, and most of you hear "blah blah blah I want to ban your SUV blah blah blah". You're not hearing what I'm saying, you're hearing what you want to. You want to fight me like we fight the Anti-gunners. To sum it up: We have to agree that SUVs and large trucks are useful vehicles when their potential is used. When they are driven only as status symbols, they are needlessly wasteful. Albeit, the CHOICE to be wasteful is within the American belief in freedom of choice. Unneccessarily wasting gas contributes to sending more money out of our country. Since a lot of our oil comes from the middle east, a lot of our money goes there. Spending more money on gas to needlessly drive a large vehicle is voluntarily sending more money to the middle east. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:22:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Anything that Hollywood endorses/does I do the opposite.
Ya'll need to think about shit like this next time you want to "go see a movie". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:22:28 AM EDT
[#22]
What if you use your SUV to run over a terrorist???? Are you then a member of an elite anti-terrorism organization!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:23:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: I have the freedom to waste shit as I see fit, and if I want to throw all my money at Abdul in the Texaco station so I can drive an SUV around on flat beautifully paved roads all day long with just li'l ol' me in car towing another two or three empty SUVs, well then, that's my business. Maybe if I get lucky one of these anti SUV freaks will jump in front of my vehicle and my foot can "slip" and hit the "wrong" pedal. What next, deforestation funds terrorism? Fatty foods supports terrorism? This shit's gettin old fast. Don't forget watching movies! You pay for said movie, movie proceeds that pay the hollyweird actors which in turn ends up in their SUV gas tank. Or in Abdullah's pocket. Oh the horror! Think I'm ready to write the next anti-SUV commie-rcial.[whacko] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:24:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: What if you use your SUV to run over a terrorist???? Are you then a member of an elite anti-terrorism organization!!!! Hey, I got to agree, THAT is a good use for an SUV! [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:25:50 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Why don't you just add the following to your sig line and be done with it: "I think SUV's are wasteful and shame on you for wasting your money". You're beginning to mimick a parrot. I sound the way I do, because discussing this topic with you guys that disagree is like arguing with a 3 year old. I state an opinion, and ask some decent, honest questions, and most of you hear "blah blah blah I want to ban your SUV blah blah blah". You're not hearing what I'm saying, you're hearing what you want to. You want to fight me like we fight the Anti-gunners. To sum it up: We have to agree that SUVs and large trucks are useful vehicles when their potential is used. When they are driven only as status symbols, they are needlessly wasteful. Albeit, the CHOICE to be wasteful is within the American belief in freedom of choice. Unneccessarily wasting gas contributes to sending more money out of our country. Since a lot of our oil comes from the middle east, a lot of our money goes there. Spending more money on gas to needlessly drive a large vehicle is voluntarily sending more money to the middle east. I ain't agreeing with you for shit. Would it make you feel better if I did though???? Better yet, change your username to ANTI-SUV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:35:33 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: [ I ain't agreeing with you for shit. Would it make you feel better if I did though???? Better yet, change your username to ANTI-SUV. It would make me think you actually had a brain, but that's not important to me. You once again point out that talking to you guys about this is like talking to a child. I am not ANTI-SUV, just like you DON'T have a small dick and DON'T need to make up for it by driving a large truck, so grow up and get over it. You just don't like the fact that I'm right about the wastefulness, and will continue to whine and attack me like a child would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:43:22 AM EDT
[#27]
Matthew_Q, you should not need an AR15. It causes you to shoot more, leave more brass lying around, inject lead into the environment, burn noxious fumes that pollute, and heat the surrounding atmosphere contributing to global warming. It is made of plastic that never biodegrates, and is derived from petroleum products. AR15 owners tend to send their money to questionable governments by purchasing high quantities of 'surplus ammunition'. This money funds many oppressive and sinister governments. You may exercise bad shooting habits thus endangering all those around you.
All a shooter needs is a single shot rifle. It more than suffices for your shooting needs. Chances are, you will never ever use your AR15 to it's full potential. BTW - you always state that "no one is suggesting that SUV's be banned", well FYI, there are lots of people who do. Even you want to change by legislation the fundamentals of how an SUV operates, thus effectively banning their use. What good is a Ford Expedition that has a 2.5 liter V-6 that gets 180 HP? What good is a hybrid Jeep Cherokee that can't lift it's own weight? These aren't rhetorical questions. I want an answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:44:27 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: [ I ain't agreeing with you for shit. Would it make you feel better if I did though???? Better yet, change your username to ANTI-SUV. It would make me think you actually had a brain, but that's not important to me. You once again point out that talking to you guys about this is like talking to a child. I am not ANTI-SUV, just like you DON'T have a small dick and DON'T need to make up for it by driving a large truck, so grow up and get over it. You just don't like the fact that I'm right about the wastefulness, and will continue to whine and attack me like a child would. And your stupid lame opinions means nothing to me. As I said in a previous thread, you're good for a laugh. Now I'm beginning to think that you just like saying stupid shit to wind people up. That would make you a [:K]. Please, continue your whining and prove my point further. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:45:08 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Worth a good laugh, even though I hate SUV's and their driver's mentalities during shitty weather. I believe SUVs should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include driving to an office job. Worth a good laugh, even though I hate Guns and their owner's mentalities about having and using them. I believe Guns should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include possesing it while driving to an office job. Sounds logical to me. Can't everyone see this? We really need to do something about these guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:46:20 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Matthew_Q, you should not need an AR15. It causes you to shoot more, leave more brass lying around, inject lead into the environment, burn noxious fumes that pollute, and heat the surrounding atmosphere contributing to global warming. It is made of plastic that never biodegrates, and is derived from petroleum products. AR15 owners tend to send their money to questionable governments by purchasing high quantities of 'surplus ammunition'. This money funds many oppressive and sinister governments. You may exercise bad shooting habits thus endangering all those around you. All a shooter needs is a single shot rifle. It more than suffices for your shooting needs. Chances are, you will never ever use your AR15 to it's full potential. BTW - you always state that "no one is suggesting that SUV's be banned", well FYI, there are lots of people who do. Even you want to change by legislation the fundamentals of how an SUV operates, thus effectively banning their use. What good is a Ford Expedition that has a 2.5 liter V-6 that gets 180 HP? What good is a hybrid Jeep Cherokee that can't lift it's own weight? These aren't rhetorical questions. I want an answer. Well you ain't getting no REAL answers. This M_Q character likes to wind people up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:46:56 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: I am not ANTI-SUV, just like you DON'T have a small dick and DON'T need to make up for it by driving a large truck, so grow up and get over it. Ooooh! The Phallic Fallacy! This should be submitted as absolute proof that you are a complete moron, and have been so discredited that you cannot make any other intelligent arguements. Flip over the broken record, because you have been revealed for what you are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 7:58:01 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: BTW - you always state that "no one is suggesting that SUV's be banned", well FYI, there are lots of people who do. Even you want to change by legislation the fundamentals of how an SUV operates, thus effectively banning their use. What good is a Ford Expedition that has a 2.5 liter V-6 that gets 180 HP? What good is a hybrid Jeep Cherokee that can't lift it's own weight? These aren't rhetorical questions. I want an answer. Torf, I do agree with you that some people DO want to ban SUVs. I DO NOT agree with them, and never will. It is MY belief that SUVs can be made better, by being made safer, and more fuel efficient. Don't you think they can? The Explorer you mention would be good for towing smaller loads or hauling things that could be fit into it's cabin area, or for multiple passengers. (in the case of the explorer, most midsize cars could do everything it could, except the ground clearance aspect) About the Cherokee, the answer is, not much good at all. But show me a hybrid Cherokee! There isn't one. If you've seen one of my posts on a different thread, Acura is making a 4 door midsize hybrid that puts out 400hp, and gets 42mpg. Why couldn't Jeep, or Chevy, or Ford put a similar powertrain in an SUV? Heck, 400HP is more than most SUVs have anyway. We'd all win in that situation. Edited to add: And the comparing an AR to an SUV thing absolutely doesn't hold water. Torf, by simply doing that, you're admitting that the Anti gunners can compare guns to cars, when we know they cannot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:01:56 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: I believe SUVs should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include driving to an office job. Give me a fucking break. Liberal/socialist claptrap. [BS2] You sound like a Democrat to me[pound] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:02:42 AM EDT
[#34]
Say good night TROLL.
Good night TROLL! [:k] = Matthew_Q [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:05:20 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: I am not ANTI-SUV, just like you DON'T have a small dick and DON'T need to make up for it by driving a large truck, so grow up and get over it. Ooooh! The Phallic Fallacy! This should be submitted as absolute proof that you are a complete moron, and have been so discredited that you cannot make any other intelligent arguements. Flip over the broken record, because you have been revealed for what you are. Wrong. I do not believe anyone drives a vehicle to make up for a small penis. Just like my opinions do not make me anti SUV, nor a moron. This one backfired on you |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:07:03 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: BTW - you always state that "no one is suggesting that SUV's be banned", well FYI, there are lots of people who do. Even you want to change by legislation the fundamentals of how an SUV operates, thus effectively banning their use. What good is a Ford Expedition that has a 2.5 liter V-6 that gets 180 HP? What good is a hybrid Jeep Cherokee that can't lift it's own weight? These aren't rhetorical questions. I want an answer. Torf, I do agree with you that some people DO want to ban SUVs. I DO NOT agree with them, and never will. It is MY belief that SUVs can be made better, by being made safer, and more fuel efficient. Don't you think they can? The Explorer you mention would be good for towing smaller loads or hauling things that could be fit into it's cabin area, or for multiple passengers. (in the case of the explorer, most midsize cars could do everything it could, except the ground clearance aspect) About the Cherokee, the answer is, not much good at all. But show me a hybrid Cherokee! There isn't one. If you've seen one of my posts on a different thread, Acura is making a 4 door midsize hybrid that puts out 400hp, and gets 42mpg. Why couldn't Jeep, or Chevy, or Ford put a similar powertrain in an SUV? Heck, 400HP is more than most SUVs have anyway. We'd all win in that situation. Edited to add: And the comparing an AR to an SUV thing absolutely doesn't hold water. Torf, by simply doing that, you're admitting that the Anti gunners can compare guns to cars, when we know they cannot. Doesn't appear to me that he's admitting shit. You say people should show a NEED to operate an SUV ( silly as it is). Where is your NEED to own an AR15? Better you didn't start this show a NEED shit in the first place. Get it yet, [:K]???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:07:35 AM EDT
[#37]
No shit, should have added more than Balzac to the Democrat wannabe list.
NEED. Think about the implications of what you are saying. You guys are soft in the mellon. Useful idiots. Lemmings. Morons. Toe cheese. Step away from your guns. You might hurt yourselves. If we are lucky [50] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:07:45 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Say good night TROLL. Good night TROLL! [:k] = Matthew_Q Noone's trolling here. You guys just don't like my opinions, and truths. And you can't handle it. Namecalling is the defense of the unintelligent. I'm challenging anyone to dispute my beliefs and opinions. The one's I've actually expressed, not the ones you want me to have, so it's easier to hate me. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:10:31 AM EDT
[#39]
Matthew, I'm beginning to see why Texas womenz ain't touching you with a 10 foot pole....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:12:49 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Doesn't appear to me that he's admitting shit. You say people should show a NEED to operate an SUV ( silly as it is). Where is your NEED to own an AR15? Better you didn't start this show a NEED shit in the first place. Get it yet, [:K]???? you're right, but I'm not disputing need, I'm disputing needless waste. You're aiming at the wrong target. Balzac brought up the need thing, and I didn't touch it, except to say that that is the part of his argument with which I don't agree. you can't attack me on that point anymore I won't ever say you can't have something if you don't need it. I never have said that. I have not advocated any regulation. Get over it. I'm not the enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:13:36 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Torf, I do agree with you that some people DO want to ban SUVs. I DO NOT agree with them, and never will. It is MY belief that SUVs can be made better, by being made safer, and more fuel efficient. Don't you think they can? Perhaps, in the future. Right now there is no substitute that is as cheap, reliable, and powerful. The Explorer you mention would be good for towing smaller loads or hauling things that could be fit into it's cabin area, or for multiple passengers. (in the case of the explorer, most midsize cars could do everything it could, except the ground clearance aspect) I said Expedition! They can carry 8 people easily, and still transport and tow cargo up a jeep road. I'd like to see your midsize do that. About the Cherokee, the answer is, not much good at all. But show me a hybrid Cherokee! There isn't one. Nor is there your hypothetical 400HP Acura. You have advocated converting modern vehicles to hybrids. If you've seen one of my posts on a different thread, Acura is making a 4 door midsize hybrid that puts out 400hp, and gets 42mpg. It doesn't exist except in the concept car realm. Ever heard of the Jeep Commander? It was also a concept car that made use of fuel cell techlology. However, regarless of how environmentally concious you were, you couldn't get one. Get the point? The vehicle doesn't exist as an option. Why couldn't Jeep, or Chevy, or Ford put a similar powertrain in an SUV? Heck, 400HP is more than most SUVs have anyway. We'd all win in that situation. Sure 400HP is a lot of ponies, but how strong (torquey) is the vehicle? How heavy? How complex? How fragile? How expensive? All these considerations are FAR more important than how effecient it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:15:08 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: Say good night TROLL. Good night TROLL! [:k] = Matthew_Q Noone's trolling here. You guys just don't like my opinions, and truths. And you can't handle it. Namecalling is the defense of the unintelligent. I'm challenging anyone to dispute my beliefs and opinions. The one's I've actually expressed, not the ones you want me to have, so it's easier to hate me. [;)] Again I state that it is none of your business what I or anyone else drives. You have your opinion (a twisted, jaded, holier-then-thou quasi-moral postion that some would construe as socialist, and others as logically inconsistent for a gun owner/ gun-rights supporter to spout off on a gun owner/gun rights board). Again I state [b]LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF PROPERTY[/b] You have yet to counter that argument. I don't hate you-just your failed liberal ideology. [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:15:12 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am not ANTI-SUV, just like you DON'T have a small dick and DON'T need to make up for it by driving a large truck, so grow up and get over it. Ooooh! The Phallic Fallacy! This should be submitted as absolute proof that you are a complete moron, and have been so discredited that you cannot make any other intelligent arguements. Flip over the broken record, because you have been revealed for what you are. Wrong. I do not believe anyone drives a vehicle to make up for a small penis. Just like my opinions do not make me anti SUV, nor a moron. This one backfired on you You brought it up, therefore it can't be too far from your mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:16:36 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Say good night TROLL. Good night TROLL! [:k] = Matthew_Q Noone's trolling here. You guys just don't like my opinions, and truths. And you can't handle it. Namecalling is the defense of the unintelligent. I'm challenging anyone to dispute my beliefs and opinions. The one's I've actually expressed, not the ones you want me to have, so it's easier to hate me. [;)] You remind me of a troll from the A&E Magnum PI forum. Telling people on a Magnum PI fan board that the show sucks. Always getting his ass kicked but kept coming back for more until everyone stopped responding to his ramblings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:25:01 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Edited to add: And the comparing an AR to an SUV thing absolutely doesn't hold water. Torf, by simply doing that, you're admitting that the Anti gunners can compare guns to cars, when we know they cannot. We are talking about NEED here, not RIGHTS. No one NEEDS an AR15 as I have pointed out, regardless of their right to own it. They are too much gun, too wasteful, and potentially dangerous. Anti-gunners talk about the comparison to vehicles in the realm of rights. I welcome the comparison anyway... License cars = license guns 16 to own and drive a car = 16 for guns big cars, small cars = big guns, small guns fast cars, slow cars = fast guns, slow guns automatic cars, manual cars = automatic guns, manual guns operate cars freely anywhere = operate guns freely anywhere gas available on corner = ammo available on corner ubiquitously owned cars = likewise guns foreign cars = foreign guns Now, were you complaining about comparing cars to guns? Even in the realm of RIGHTS, such comparisons work out well in our favor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:29:20 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Torf, I do agree with you that some people DO want to ban SUVs. I DO NOT agree with them, and never will. It is MY belief that SUVs can be made better, by being made safer, and more fuel efficient. Don't you think they can? Perhaps, in the future. Right now there is no substitute that is as cheap, reliable, and powerful. [red]Powerful and reliable, yes. Cheap? Most SUVs are pretty pricey, and add fuel costs on top of that, they do cost more than a lot of other vehicles. This IS subjective of course. Depending on how much a person actually drives it, it may not be much more expensive. I do see your point and mostly agree with you. [/red] The Explorer you mention would be good for towing smaller loads or hauling things that could be fit into it's cabin area, or for multiple passengers. (in the case of the explorer, most midsize cars could do everything it could, except the ground clearance aspect) I said Expedition! They can carry 8 people easily, and still transport and tow cargo up a jeep road. I'd like to see your midsize do that. [red]Sorry, Expedition, Explorer, Escape, Escalade, Exstacy, Exploder... the names sound too damn similar to me! Like I have mentioned, my view is that they ARE useful in certain circumstances, most of which, most of us will never be in. [/red] About the Cherokee, the answer is, not much good at all. But show me a hybrid Cherokee! There isn't one. Nor is there your hypothetical 400HP Acura. You have advocated converting modern vehicles to hybrids. [red]Yes, the Acura is in it's concept phase, but from what I read, Honda/Acura is very good at making concept vehicles into reality. I do advocate integrating hybrid power plants into vehicles. It's feasible, and it can be done. Yes, it may cost more in it's infancy, but there will be tangible benefits.[/red] If you've seen one of my posts on a different thread, Acura is making a 4 door midsize hybrid that puts out 400hp, and gets 42mpg. It doesn't exist except in the concept car realm. Ever heard of the Jeep Commander? It was also a concept car that made use of fuel cell techlology. However, regarless of how environmentally concious you were, you couldn't get one. Get the point? The vehicle doesn't exist as an option. [red]I hadn't heard about the Commander. If I were one of those psycho type environmentalists, I might have, but I'm more of a conservative on both political and environmental issues. I don't support the tactics those morons use, but I'm caught between them, and you guys, so you guys tend to paint me as one of them. [/red] Why couldn't Jeep, or Chevy, or Ford put a similar powertrain in an SUV? Heck, 400HP is more than most SUVs have anyway. We'd all win in that situation. Sure 400HP is a lot of ponies, but how strong (torquey) is the vehicle? How heavy? How complex? How fragile? How expensive? All these considerations are FAR more important than how effecient it is. [red]Again, I admit that hybrid technology is expensive at the moment, because it's new. Computers 10 years ago costed THOUSANDS and perform much less than computers do now, right? The same, to some extent, will apply to new technology in vehicles. Right now, I think the industry should pursue their concepts and make some. Put them in front of consumers, and see how we react. My beliefs, guys, are that we simply can do what we want to do (all of us), but it could be done BETTER. SUVs can be made better, safer, and more efficient. Hell, ALL vehicles can! I don't think it should be brought about by government regulation. I'd rather the auto industry take the initiative, and show us what they can do. I'm not trying to be a troll here. I'm absolutely not advocating the banning or regulation of anything. I just believe we can do better, as a nation, as drivers and vehicle owners. And heck, if it hurts the middle east by buying less oil from them, FUCK 'EM!! If you guys want to flame me, and argue, and beat your chests and fling insults, keep at it. Just remember it reflects on you, too. I think I have said all I want to say. Any thoughtful, polite and intellegent comments might get an answer. Everything else, I don't want to participate in anymore. [/red] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:32:50 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Quoted: Doesn't appear to me that he's admitting shit. You say people should show a NEED to operate an SUV ( silly as it is). Where is your NEED to own an AR15? Better you didn't start this show a NEED shit in the first place. Get it yet, [:K]???? you're right, but I'm not disputing need, I'm disputing needless waste. You're aiming at the wrong target. Balzac brought up the need thing, and I didn't touch it, except to say that that is the part of his argument with which I don't agree. you can't attack me on that point anymore I won't ever say you can't have something if you don't need it. I never have said that. I have not advocated any regulation. Get over it. I'm not the enemy. Looks to me like you wholeheartedly agreed with Balzac's statements: Quoted: Quoted: Worth a good laugh, even though I hate SUV's and their driver's mentalities during shitty weather. I believe SUVs should be on a NEED basis, which doesn't include driving to an office job. I agree with you but watch out! Some of the guys here will call you a Nazi socialist bastard for suggesting what they NEED! Maybe you should edit for clarification purposes. You wouldn't want more people barking up the wrong tree now would you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:37:28 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Why don't you just add the following to your sig line and be done with it: "I think SUV's are wasteful and shame on you for wasting your money". You're beginning to mimick a parrot. I sound the way I do, because discussing this topic with you guys that disagree is like arguing with a 3 year old. I state an opinion, and ask some decent, honest questions, and most of you hear "blah blah blah I want to ban your SUV blah blah blah". You're not hearing what I'm saying, you're hearing what you want to. You want to fight me like we fight the Anti-gunners. To sum it up: We have to agree that SUVs and large trucks are useful vehicles when their potential is used. When they are driven only as status symbols, they are needlessly wasteful. Albeit, the CHOICE to be wasteful is within the American belief in freedom of choice. Unneccessarily wasting gas contributes to sending more money out of our country. Since a lot of our oil comes from the middle east, a lot of our money goes there. Spending more money on gas to needlessly drive a large vehicle is voluntarily sending more money to the middle east. Hey MatthewQ, I am way relaxed, but you are trotting out a tired and wrong assumption. Did you know that the US is receiving only 8% of our oil imports from the Middle East? Our major oil provider is Venezuela! So when I go and use way too much gas, I am supporting ......Venezuelan companies which are actually part owned by US oil companies, and even the Venezuelan companies that are local owned, they pay US companies and workers to provide the technologies and skilled workers to produce this oil that goes into my big gas guzzling truck! Oh, and do not forget that the all crude oil (including the 8% from the Middle East) needs to be refined to gasoline and this is done by US owned refineries employing US workers. This refined Gasoline is then sold to distributers that then resell the fuel to the end source, my truck. Check your sources and then recheck them and then come up with an original idea that can be defended or at least makes sense when subjected to facts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:38:02 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Torf, I do agree with you that some people DO want to ban SUVs. I DO NOT agree with them, and never will. It is MY belief that SUVs can be made better, by being made safer, and more fuel efficient. Don't you think they can? Perhaps, in the future. Right now there is no substitute that is as cheap, reliable, and powerful. [red]Powerful and reliable, yes. Cheap? Most SUVs are pretty pricey, and add fuel costs on top of that, they do cost more than a lot of other vehicles. This IS subjective of course. Depending on how much a person actually drives it, it may not be much more expensive. I do see your point and mostly agree with you. [/red] The Explorer you mention would be good for towing smaller loads or hauling things that could be fit into it's cabin area, or for multiple passengers. (in the case of the explorer, most midsize cars could do everything it could, except the ground clearance aspect) I said Expedition! They can carry 8 people easily, and still transport and tow cargo up a jeep road. I'd like to see your midsize do that. [red]Sorry, Expedition, Explorer, Escape, Escalade, Exstacy, Exploder... the names sound too damn similar to me! Like I have mentioned, my view is that they ARE useful in certain circumstances, most of which, most of us will never be in. [/red] About the Cherokee, the answer is, not much good at all. But show me a hybrid Cherokee! There isn't one. Nor is there your hypothetical 400HP Acura. You have advocated converting modern vehicles to hybrids. [red]Yes, the Acura is in it's concept phase, but from what I read, Honda/Acura is very good at making concept vehicles into reality. I do advocate integrating hybrid power plants into vehicles. It's feasible, and it can be done. Yes, it may cost more in it's infancy, but there will be tangible benefits.[/red] If you've seen one of my posts on a different thread, Acura is making a 4 door midsize hybrid that puts out 400hp, and gets 42mpg. It doesn't exist except in the concept car realm. Ever heard of the Jeep Commander? It was also a concept car that made use of fuel cell techlology. However, regarless of how environmentally concious you were, you couldn't get one. Get the point? The vehicle doesn't exist as an option. [red]I hadn't heard about the Commander. If I were one of those psycho type environmentalists, I might have, but I'm more of a conservative on both political and environmental issues. I don't support the tactics those morons use, but I'm caught between them, and you guys, so you guys tend to paint me as one of them. [/red] Why couldn't Jeep, or Chevy, or Ford put a similar powertrain in an SUV? Heck, 400HP is more than most SUVs have anyway. We'd all win in that situation. Sure 400HP is a lot of ponies, but how strong (torquey) is the vehicle? How heavy? How complex? How fragile? How expensive? All these considerations are FAR more important than how effecient it is. [red]Again, I admit that hybrid technology is expensive at the moment, because it's new. Computers 10 years ago costed THOUSANDS and perform much less than computers do now, right? The same, to some extent, will apply to new technology in vehicles. Right now, I think the industry should pursue their concepts and make some. Put them in front of consumers, and see how we react. My beliefs, guys, are that we simply can do what we want to do (all of us), but it could be done BETTER. SUVs can be made better, safer, and more efficient. Hell, ALL vehicles can! I don't think it should be brought about by government regulation. I'd rather the auto industry take the initiative, and show us what they can do. I'm not trying to be a troll here. I'm absolutely not advocating the banning or regulation of anything. I just believe we can do better, as a nation, as drivers and vehicle owners. And heck, if it hurts the middle east by buying less oil from them, FUCK 'EM!! If you guys want to flame me, and argue, and beat your chests and fling insults, keep at it. Just remember it reflects on you, too. I think I have said all I want to say. Any thoughtful, polite and intellegent comments might get an answer. Everything else, I don't want to participate in anymore. [/red] [wave][:K] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2003 8:42:24 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Maybe you should edit for clarification purposes. You wouldn't want more people barking up the wrong tree now would you? Seadweller, You are absolutely right. My comment in reply to Balzac looks like what you think it does. I admit it does, and comment that I do not agree with some sort of regulation based on need. See, I am politically conservative like most everyone here, but I am environmentally conservative, too. I think this is a little of an uncommon combination of character, but I believe that they go together well. I do ask one thing of you guys. Can we keep our posts in this thread intelligent and civilised from here on out? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
