SUV drivers support terrorists!

[allah akbar]

Leftist is as descriptive a term as Republican, and or liberal/environmentalist, and I believe accurately describes those on this board who believe they know better than the masses, and who would impose their wills on the majority because they believe themselves to be enlightened.

I applied that term liberally to those who engage in sanctimonious holier than thou sermons about how society and our lives should be managed. If you think that applies to your approach...so be it...I think you're a leftist

The lack of response to the content of the posting further proves my point. Leftists don't care about others points of view.

As for insulting....really!!! Do you really consider telling people how they should live their lives to be any less insulting than me calling it by its rightful name?

 

[ddtlm]

allah akbar:

OK, I'll admint "leftist" isn't much of an insult as far as I see, however your otherwise insulting style assures that noone takes yours points seriously.

 

[allah akbar]

So let me try and understand.

saying that republicans are taking away people's rights is OK in your books,

but

lamenting the purely partisan, obviously political, and disingenous rant of those who aspire to take away MORE OF MY RIGHTS is somehow insulting??

 

[ddtlm]

allah akbar:

I am not going to spell out for you why your posts are dissagreeable. In fact, like everyone else (so far), I do not plan on returning to this thread.

 

[allah akbar]

no surprise.

it's not like there's any substance to the argument from the left anyways.

The left yells and screams a lot. They scream RACISM! INTOLLERANCE! ANGER! PEACE! BIG-OIL! ASHCROFT!

But when you disect what they are saying, when you scratch just a little bit below the surface, just below the rehashed propoganda, and offer some basic and common sense responses (like I offered), they typically have no answer and run-away to hide.

Like you.

 

[sturm375]

US Govt. Supports Terrorists

If buying big SUVs supports Terrorists, then you can blame the US Government. A little known tax deduction for small business up to $24K on Trucks (SUVs are classified as trucks) over 6000 lbs. Here is the like to one of the many articles I found with a simple googole search: SUV Tax Deduction.

That's up to $24K deduction, while hybred vehicles net $2K deduction. That sounds about right for the US government. Say one thing, do another. This is an old law origionally intended for helping farmers to buy light trucks.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

I was riding in an SUV last May 10 when that vehicle was rear-ended by a Toyota pickup. If I were in a VW Golf or any other smaller vehicle, I would have been killed.

And FYI, you do need a four wheel drive vehicle in some parts of the country in the winter.

And now:

Nick and Norm drive the point home

A Ramblin' Gamblin' Willie story by Greg Swann


Nick: So now driving an SUV funds terrorism...?

Norm: Yup.

Nick: An SUV?

Norm: Yup.

Nick: Just driving it. Not driving the getaway car for a
bank robbery?

Norm: Just driving.

Nick: Not smuggling an SUV-load of the drugs you say fund
terrorism?

Norm: Just driving. It's the gas.

Nick: The gas I put into my SUV?

Norm: That gas.

Nick: Not the gas I put into my sedan?

Norm: Nope.

Nick: Not the gas I put into my lawn mower?

Norm: Nope. Driving SUVs funds terrorism.

Nick: What about Honda SUVs? They're not even really SUVs,
just fat, ugly cars.

Norm: Driving SUVs funds terrorism.

Nick: What about those little Suburu SUVs? I mean they're
practically like station wagons.

Norm: Driving SUVs funds terrorism.

Nick: What about pick-up trucks? That's what a real SUV is,
after all.

Norm: Driving _SUVs_ funds terrorism. Two white guys in
suits talking about terrorism. Who does that influence?

Nick: ...White guys in suits, I guess. Really dumb white
guys in suits.

Norm: Exactly. Not pick-up drivers. SUV drivers.

Nick: So that's why driving SUVs funds terrorism...

Norm: And buying jewelry at the mall.

Nick: No way!

Norm: Buying jewelry at the mall funds terrorism.

Nick: Jewelry... At the mall...

Norm: And buying smuggled cigarettes.

Nick: I'm on the patch.

Norm: And sending your children to college.

Nick: Grace got the kids, you know that.

Norm: I'm not talking about kids. I'm talking about all the
ways really dumb white guys in suits fund terrorism.

Nick: Really dumb guys?

Norm: The dumbest.

Nick: Dumber that those guys in the FedEx commercials.

Norm: Stealing ideas from FedEx commercials funds terrorism.

Nick: But I mean, guys so dumb they'll believe the stupidest
arguments?

Norm: That dumb.

Nick: Guys who'll believe that drug buyers fund terrorism,
but the laws that make selling drugs so profitable _don't?_

Norm: Guys that dumb.

Nick: Guys who'll believe that it's the cigarettes but not
the cigarette taxes that make them worth smuggling?

Norm: Guys that dumb. Think about this one.

Nick: Okay.

Norm: See a penny?

Nick: Got it.

Norm: Pick it up?

Nick: Yeah. So?

Norm: Funds terrorism.

Nick: What if I just leave the penny where it is?

Norm: Even worse.

 

[Thanatoast]

Three cheers to Phil for injecting a sorely needed bit of humor!

Now back to the topic. What was the topic again? Oh yes, SUV drivers support terrorism. Kay, we can probably all agree that the issue is more complex than this, but I think that what the "leftists" were trying to point out was (in the simplest possible terms, that using huge amounts of gas is a bad thing.

They felt that when dealing with the average consumer American, they had to dumb down the message as far as possible to get their point acrosss. Aparently (what I'm seeing from this thread) is that this strategy works about as well as the anti drug ads the gov't puts out that these commercials are based on.

Anyone have any constructive criticism for how to make the ads more effective?

My idea isn't for the ads, it's for the oil problem as a whole. Why not devote the $100 billion going to fund the war in Iraq towards devoloping an alternative fuel source? In the long run I think that will save us money. GM's already got a prototype fuel cell car. I'm sure the Japanese have some decent electrics up their sleeve. Just going hybrid isn't gonna do it, it will just prolong the problem. We should get out of the mid-east altogether. Or as much as possible. Their conflicts are have a detrimental effect on our way of life/economy.

And I like 3rdpath's point that it will come to an attitude change, nothing else.

And to the SUV supporters, sure some of you use your trucks for towing/hauling/off-roading. But how many people who own SUV's do?

 

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Three cheers to Phil for injecting a sorely needed bit of humor!

And to the SUV supporters, sure some of you use your trucks for towing/hauling/off-roading. But how many people who own SUV's do?

Why do they have to "use" our SUV's by towing/hauling/off-roading. What if I wanted a truck, because mechanicaly they last longer, and are sturdier? What if I don't want a foreign vehicle because either they are built cheap, or they are too expensive for my buget?

 

[sturm375]

Outlawing SUVs.

Here's something from the Chicago Tribune this morning, I thought it was funny.

Driving large


E-mail this story
Printer-friendly format
Search archives

Doug Zook
Published January 17, 2003

Bensenville -- Just remember, when SUVs are outlawed, only outlaws will have SUVs.

Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

 

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Thanatoast

They felt that when dealing with the average consumer American, they had to dumb down the message as far as possible to get their point acrosss.

judging by some of the responses in this thread, the ads weren't dumbed down quite enough......

as i responded before, the ads were simply a way to raise awareness of the far-reaching implications of our decisions. no one ever said "ban SUV's".

but i guess its far easier to refute an imaginary arguement than to deal with the issue at hand.

 

[Thanatoast]

sturm, you make some valid points, cheers. i hadn't thought of that. but i still question the motives of most SUV buyers. how many soccer moms buy expeditions b/c they are mechanically sound? how many executive commuters buy escalades b/c foriegn cars are too expensive? shoot, i go to a yuppie college where some kids are driving H2's. where's the sense in that? most of these people are buying the status symbol, not the car. what the ad is asking is, is the status symbol worth the trouble it causes? apparently most people still don't get it. maybe they shoulda drawn a diagram...

 

[Phil Of Mac]

SUV's have legitimate uses for those of us who want comfort but want to keep a high level of passenger room, safety and all-terrain capability. If you don't need one, don't get one. Personally, surviving accidents is important to me. I'm not going to be a moron who's gonna take a right turn at 40 miles per hour and flip over, so I would have use for an SUV. Even an H2 has advantages when it comes to safety. When a Hummer is in a crash, the Hummer wins no matter what. And when I end up in a crash, I want to be in the vehicle that I can survive in.

As for oil, the war in Iraq has little to do with getting MORE oil, because we already get plenty of oil from Iraq. It's either a security concern or it's Bush and Cheney helping out the oil companies that supported them. Fuel cells will happen, all we need is a cheap source of liquid hydrogen. But for the next 20 to 30 years, people will still drive gasoline-powered cars.

Here's to hydrogen, the cause of, and solution to, all of life problems!