Dum-Dems: SUV = Terror.....?!?!?!?!

Skyjack666 · January 10, 2003, 16:39

So, if driving an SUV is supporting terrorism because the SUV gets less miles per gallon, why did they leave out these activities??????

- Nascar wastes 200,000 gallons per race = terror
- so does Grand Prix = terror
- driving to grandma's house instead of taking the bus = terror
- taking the 'scenic' route home = terror
- how about pleasure boats? = terror
- going to an air show = terror
- changing your engine oil too often = terror
- weraing contact lenses (made from oil) = terror
- using Vaseline (sorry boys) = terror
- buying milk in plastic containers instead of paper = terror (they will have a tough time with this one because they also don't want you to use paper products)
- in some regions, turning on a light switch = terror
(oil-burning for electricity)
- in fact, just sitting there reading this you could be supporting terror

They just hate SUVs, methinks. So they attempt to use the raw 'terror' nerve to forward their agenda. It proves that the liberals want everyone dumb and dependant and reliant on THEM. In fact, years ago they wanted to weaken the structures on SUVs to make it more fair in a crash...LOL! Why not strengthen other cars to help them stand up???

It is so typical of them to want to bring down an average instead of raise it up to a higher standard. God forbid someone should have a bigger, fancier car than someone else....sheeesh!

Please everyone add other activities to this list...

Shi Huangdi · January 10, 2003, 16:40

I don't think people should drive SUVs if they don't need one, as it is bad for the environment and increases our reliance on foreign oil.

Jaakko · January 10, 2003, 16:42

I thought it was just a spoof on the silly drugs=terror ads.

Anyway, why do you use so many question marks?

Nubclear · January 10, 2003, 16:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I don't think people should drive SUVs if they don't need one, as it is bad for the environment and increases our reliance on foreign oil.

Wow......I agree

Also,

Sava · January 10, 2003, 16:49

I think what you are failing to realize is exactly what Shi pointed out. Doing those events you listed doesn't come close to equaling the amount of gas that is used by the millions of SUV's in the US. Actually, speaking of the drugs=terror, I bet more oil money (via Saudis) gets funneled to terror than drug money. But then again, its much easier to attack someones drug use than to admit that your gas guzzling POS is bad. It's good old American Hypocrisy.

In all honesty, I think the whole SUV=terror thing is a stretch... less of a stretch than the drug=terror bit. If Bush, Drug Fuerher Asa Hutchinsin, and the rest of their crew stop their silly drug=terror program and admit it was stupid. Then I think this new marketing campaign should do the same. Until then, carry on!

Sava · January 10, 2003, 16:52

Quote:

They just hate SUVs, methinks. So they attempt to use the raw 'terror' nerve to forward their agenda. It proves that the liberals want everyone dumb and dependant and reliant on THEM. In fact, years ago they wanted to weaken the structures on SUVs to make it more fair in a crash...LOL! Why not strengthen other cars to help them stand up???

Skyjack666, methinks, is a DL. And probably a Rush Limbaugh listener

DinoDoc · January 10, 2003, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I don't think people should drive SUVs if they don't need one, as it is bad for the environment and increases our reliance on foreign oil.

Wearing contact lenses and Formula 1 racing increases reliance on foreign oil as well. What's your point evil plastic user!?!

Dauphin · January 10, 2003, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Wearing contact lenses and Formula 1 racing increases reliance on foreign oil as well. What's your point evil plastic user!?!

Its a question of scale. Are SUV the biggest unneccessary consumer of oil products? If yes, they are the valid target.

rah · January 10, 2003, 16:57

All you SUV whiners can K*** M* A**
My wife and BOTH own SUV's. It's makes us feel safer driving in the winter in Chicago. Neither of us has been in a winter accident since.
We also bought a smaller more expensive house close to where we work. So combined, we use less gas than our neighbor with his high MPG car that commutes all the way into the city. SO all you people that automatically condemn anyone that uses an SUV to be a gas guzzler, can K*** M* A**.

RAH
My opinions do NOT reflect those of the management

Dauphin · January 10, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
We also bought a smaller more expensive house close to where we work. So combined, we use less gas than our neighbor with his high MPG car that commutes all the way into the city. SO all you people that automatically condemn anyone that uses an SUV to be a gas guzzler, can K*** M* A**.

Unless they were mutually exclusive options that doesn't justify owning an SUV on net gas-guzzling ground. Fact is, if you bought a small safe fuel efficient car, then you'd be less of a gas-guzzler.

Ideally (from an environment point of view) you'd live near your workplace and have a fuel efficient car.

ThePantaloonDog · January 10, 2003, 17:08

I don't how people drive in snow in Chicago in the snow (probably a lot better) but in Baltimore people in SUV's have to be the biggest morons during winter driving. There's nothing more scary then having some moron driving across an icy bridge at 80 mph because they think that 4 wheel drive will somehow magically cause they're wheels to grip.

Sava · January 10, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
All you SUV whiners can K*** M* A**
My wife and BOTH own SUV's. It's makes us feel safer driving in the winter in Chicago. Neither of us has been in a winter accident since.
We also bought a smaller more expensive house close to where we work. So combined, we use less gas than our neighbor with his high MPG car that commutes all the way into the city. SO all you people that automatically condemn anyone that uses an SUV to be a gas guzzler, can K*** M* A**.

RAH
My opinions do NOT reflect those of the management

Rah, this ad campaign is not a blanket generalization about every single individual SUV owner. It's about the rich yuppies speeding around in their Lincoln Navigators and Hummers. In fact, I applaud you for your environmentally conscious decision to live closer to your work.

My mom drives a Toyota Highlander for the same reasons

. Anyways, hopefully this will shed light on why so many people were offended by that stupid anti-drug campaign. Not everyone fits the "profile".

Sava · January 10, 2003, 17:13

Now that you guys mention stupid 4ss SUV drivers in the snow....

I used to deliver pizzas in Naperville (SW Chicago suburb) and every snow there would be countless SUV's in the ditches from people who think that their SUV gives them a ticket to drive like an idiot in the snow.

GePap · January 10, 2003, 17:17

Gievn how much the Saudis and other gulf states have invested in US corporations, and in theory, how much they make when these companies are profitable, I bet most activities in the US "fund terror". Hell, the huge tax cut on dividends: how much will go to foregin (perhaps Saudi) investors!!?? Bush Tax Cut = TERROR!

New TV adds: this is the boy who voted, this is the pol he elected, this is the pol's campaign contributor, this is the contributors employeer, and this is the saudi man who invested in the company, that payed the contributor, that gave to the pol, that the boy elected...

DEMOCRACY = TERRORISM.

Think about that.

Ubergeek · January 10, 2003, 17:21

This whole thing was started by Arianna Huffington (most recent column on the topic available over at Salon.com, http://www.salon.com/opinion/huffing...suv/index.html). While the ads engage in a bit of hyperbole to make a point (and which ads don't?) the central point is valid: due to SUVs this nation consumes a million more gallons of gas each day than it would if everyone who drove an SUV drove a fuel-efficient car. Please don't try to tell me that has no effect on our national security.

Arrian · January 10, 2003, 17:30

I'd prefer that we spend our time & effort working out alternative fuels. I'm not a big fan of SUVs (I drive a relatively fuel efficient Honda Accord - and if they had put the hybrid technology in the Accord I would have bought it), but there are lots of uses of oil one could pick on.

I agree dependence on oil is bad thing (for a number of different reasons), so let's work on an alternative. Hell, if the oil companies are so scared of what would happen if a viable alternative hit the market, couldn't the government make it worth their while to work with the auto companies to develop it, and then share in the profits?

-Arrian

Skyjack666 · January 10, 2003, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

Skyjack666, methinks, is a DL. And probably a Rush Limbaugh listener

Oh, Sava? And how then would you know?? I listen to all sides Con and Lib. The Libs right now seem 'less good'. I go through phases; sometimes I hate the Cons more.

Actually, I hate Rush Limpdog. The religious right can stop their moral high-ground B.S.

I hate both sides equally. We need more options politically.

I still think the whiney left is waaaay more dangerous, though. They really use the scare tactics too much. The left isn't all bad but they've gotta stop the 'dumbing down' stuff. They really appear to want everyone to be dependent (ultimately on them).

Boris Godunov · January 10, 2003, 18:19

What did these ads have to do with liberals? It was car companies who ran them. Are car companies known to be hotbeds of liberalism?

You're an idjit, as che would say.

Imran Siddiqui · January 10, 2003, 18:20

Hey if people want to drive SUV's I say let 'em. They pay for it, and they make that choice (not to mention that all GM SUVs will have a hybrid model as well in the near future). I'd personally drive a hybred SUV, because paying for gas every week would suck

.

But it's a hilarious retort to drugs=terrorism

.

Skyjack666 · January 10, 2003, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Now that you guys mention stupid 4ss SUV drivers in the snow....

I used to deliver pizzas in Naperville (SW Chicago suburb) and every snow there would be countless SUV's in the ditches from people who think that their SUV gives them a ticket to drive like an idiot in the snow.

Yes, Sava this is sooo funny. SUV drivers don't realize that 4-wheel drive gives you more TRACTION, not more STOPPING power. I love to watch them skid through an intersection, crash, and then get out and scratch their head like, "but this is a $60,000 SUV...why?".

Jac de Molay · January 10, 2003, 18:20

The link between SUV's and terror is tenuous at best, especially when you consider oil is in practically EVERYTHING we use.

There's still a lot of reasons to hate them, though. They've been skirting various safety and mileage requirements for years, thanks to corporate lobbying and such.

Their safety record is atrocious too. Anyone who needs a truck the size of a Sherman Tank to go to Starbucks and back.....

Ubergeek · January 10, 2003, 18:21

Sorry, Skyjack, but I'm not following you. Why is pushing for people to drive more fuel-efficient cars "wanting people to be dependent (ultimately on them)"?

Boris Godunov · January 10, 2003, 18:23

He doesn't know, he's just frothing at the mouth and tossing out meaningless ad hominems that don't make any logical sense.

Cyclotron · January 10, 2003, 18:29

Well, the ads don't say that only SUVs fund terror. So it's really a question of priorities. I live in a county known for rich people that drive to Starbucks in their Urban Assault Vehicles (Stripes reference), and it bugs me quite a bit. True, plastics also fund terror I guess, but the point is that for most SUVs are a useless waste (with a nod to rah for his appropriate exception to this). If we need the oil, fine, but we should be cutting down on such a waste of resources.

rah · January 10, 2003, 18:49

Been away for awhile, and it looks like it's been fun.

A few points.
My wife (prior to her SUV) had little efficient honda. All of them were splattered on the road in winter accidents. (none her fault, but she might have avoided one of them in a four wheel drive car) SO the safety aspect was big.

Both of us laugh at those SUV's in ditches, we are well aware of the limitations of our vehicles and aren't MORONS.

And drive accordingly and avoided ditches

Neither of our SUV's are the monster ones, so our gas milage isn't THAT bad.
One Honda Passport and One Cherokee sport.

One of the main aspects of spending more on a smaller house was to be near our jobs so we would help conserve fuel. (My car just turned 7 years old and I have barely 50K miles on it.) My neighbor that commutes daily into the city racks up 30K a year on his car. I don't care what his MPG is, he's using more gas than my wife and I together.

I haul a lot of stuff around for house projects that wouldn't fit in a smaller car. Try stuffing a 8x4 piece of drywall in a Civic

And yes, I do realize that most of the comments were not intended for EVERY SUV driver, but I like to respond to people if I think there's even a hint of generalizing.

AND finally, yes, monster SUV's have really gone over the top and I would guess that only about 5% of the people that buy them, actually need them.

RAH

Grrr · January 10, 2003, 19:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Skyjack666
- in some regions, turning on a light switch = terror
(oil-burning for electricity)

Also oil-burning to refine raw materials for use in nuclear power plants.

Kingof the Apes · January 10, 2003, 19:26

It's funny to see that almost every aspect of my life is influenced by politics. I hope no one tries to tell me what to eat tonight.

Cyclotron · January 10, 2003, 19:32

beef, it's what's for dinner.

chequita guevara · January 10, 2003, 21:30

If you have an SUV older than a few years ago, it's actually a more dangerous vehical than a car. Despite engineer warnings, car companies refused to make SUVs wider and lower to the ground. Result: SUVs have a very high rate of rollover for rather minor traffic accidents and turns. Since they don't have the same safty requirements, the cabins collapse during rollover. In other words, if you get hit on the side while in an older SUV, you stand a greater chance of being killed than if you were in a smaller vehical. Ironically, SUVs are too dangerous to use in off-road driving, their ostensible purpose. Newer SUVs are more balanced, and won't tip over so easily.

My biggest complaint about SUVs is that they make the road more dangerous for everyone else. SUVs are exceedingly dangerous to smaller cars and they reduce road visibility for anyone in cars. It's not right that SUV owners increase their own safety at the expense of others.

chequita guevara · January 10, 2003, 21:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes

It's funny to see that almost every aspect of my life is influenced by politics. I hope no one tries to tell me what to eat tonight.

That's because life is politics and politics is about life.

What I find funny is people who think politics has nothing o do with them.