Ride an SUB not an SUV



In article <[email protected]>,
Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion

>on
>> >our own nation?

>>
>> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the **** that's
>> going on in Iraq?
>>

>I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.


"Whoosh!" That's the sound of the point flying over your head.



--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
donquijote1954 wrote:
> Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
> gargantuan sum of money...
>
> Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
>
> CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
> executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
> the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
> in U.S. corporate history.
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occidentalpetroleum_pay.html?.v=8
>
> But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them. :(
>

That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet). For gas to
be headed towards the $4/gallon mark and the CEO's and oil shareholders
making obscene profits is just not right. They should be hurting along
with the rest of the country, not getting richer at the expense of
everyone else in the country.
Of course, you don't see Bush even thinking about an SUV gas guzzler tax
either.
Bill Baka
 
Bill wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
>> Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
>> gargantuan sum of money...
>>
>> Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
>>
>> CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
>> executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
>> the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
>> in U.S. corporate history.
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occidentalpetroleum_pay.html?.v=8
>>
>> But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them. :(
>>

> That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
> industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet). For gas to
> be headed towards the $4/gallon mark and the CEO's and oil shareholders
> making obscene profits is just not right. They should be hurting along
> with the rest of the country,


Why?

The rest of the country really isn't hurting that much - sure we're
spending more on gas, but demand hasn't gone down significantly, nor are
people starving to put gas in their cars.

> not getting richer at the expense of
> everyone else in the country.


Would you prefer a gov't owned oil industry - like Mexico or Venezuela
(and I presume many middle eastern countries) have?

> Of course, you don't see Bush even thinking about an SUV gas guzzler tax
> either.


Why should he?

> Bill Baka
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:DM6Sh.29942$B7.458@bigfe9...
>
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > -
> >> >.
> >> >>
> >> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
> >> > billion
> >> > on
> >> > our own nation?
> >> >
> >> Our own nation is not New Orleans,

> >
> > New Oreans IS part of the United States.
> >
> >>we already sunk millions into that place,
> >> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
> >>

> > Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made

sure
> > of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.

>
> So you're saying that the democratic process that would have allowed them

to
> elect a more helpful mayor was rigged?
>

Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of
dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own people.

(and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly fair in LA.)
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > -
> >> >.
> >> >>
> >> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
> >> > billion
> >> > on
> >> > our own nation?
> >> >
> >> Our own nation is not New Orleans,

> >
> > New Oreans IS part of the United States.
> >
> >>we already sunk millions into that place,
> >> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
> >>

> > Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made

sure
> > of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.

>
> This is a good example of the liberal mentality, after all these years

they
> still think they can pick up a turd by the clean end. Any person or

group
> can help inprove their own status, it takes a little ambition, a little
> patience, and a lot of work, 3 things that are missing in places like New
> Orleans. The "system" you are referring to is the very system you are
> promoting. You think the solution to any problem is to throw more money

at
> it, especially someone else's money.


What's "liberal" about taking care of your own people instead of throwing
away our tax money on Iraqi's who hate us?
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew T. Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2

billion
> >on
> >> >our own nation?
> >>
> >> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the **** that's
> >> going on in Iraq?
> >>

> >I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.

>
> "Whoosh!" That's the sound of the point flying over your head.
>

You have no point. You are simply trying to distract from the issue. The
issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraqi's or
whether we spend a tenth of that on our own people.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Clark F Morris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:28:46 -0700, "Baxter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2

billion
> >on
> >> >our own nation?
> >>
> >> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the **** that's
> >> going on in Iraq?
> >>

> >I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
> >

> After instituting regime change, the US took on a responsibility to
> all those in Iraq who tried to make it work. While I am dubious about
> the invasion and the reasoning behind it, it would be insane to leave
> things open to something even worse than Sadaam for the people of
> Iraq. It also would signal that it is not safe to ally with the
> United States and that resisting them passively is safer.
>

Gamblers excuse. We need to recognize it's past time to cut our losses -
we'll come out ahead in the long run.
 
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:41:56 -0700, "Baxter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Clark F Morris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:28:46 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2

>billion
>> >on
>> >> >our own nation?
>> >>
>> >> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the **** that's
>> >> going on in Iraq?
>> >>
>> >I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
>> >

>> After instituting regime change, the US took on a responsibility to
>> all those in Iraq who tried to make it work. While I am dubious about
>> the invasion and the reasoning behind it, it would be insane to leave
>> things open to something even worse than Sadaam for the people of
>> Iraq. It also would signal that it is not safe to ally with the
>> United States and that resisting them passively is safer.
>>

>Gamblers excuse. We need to recognize it's past time to cut our losses -
>we'll come out ahead in the long run.
>

The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > -
>> >> >.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
>> >> > billion
>> >> > on
>> >> > our own nation?
>> >> >
>> >> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
>> >
>> > New Oreans IS part of the United States.
>> >
>> >>we already sunk millions into that place,
>> >> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
>> >>
>> > Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made

> sure
>> > of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.

>>
>> This is a good example of the liberal mentality, after all these years

> they
>> still think they can pick up a turd by the clean end. Any person or

> group
>> can help inprove their own status, it takes a little ambition, a little
>> patience, and a lot of work, 3 things that are missing in places like New
>> Orleans. The "system" you are referring to is the very system you are
>> promoting. You think the solution to any problem is to throw more money

> at
>> it, especially someone else's money.

>
> What's "liberal" about taking care of your own people instead of throwing
> away our tax money on Iraqi's who hate us?
>
>


Because we've already spent millions down there, it was mostly all
squandered to waste and corruption with very little noticeable results.
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:DM6Sh.29942$B7.458@bigfe9...
>>
>> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > -
>> >> >.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
>> >> > billion
>> >> > on
>> >> > our own nation?
>> >> >
>> >> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
>> >
>> > New Oreans IS part of the United States.
>> >
>> >>we already sunk millions into that place,
>> >> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
>> >>
>> > Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made

> sure
>> > of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.

>>
>> So you're saying that the democratic process that would have allowed them

> to
>> elect a more helpful mayor was rigged?
>>

> Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of
> dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own people.
>
> (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly fair in
> LA.)


Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana are
somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't? What does the
amount of money we are spending in Iraq have to do with urban planning, when
you get down to it?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006


> That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
> industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet).


FYI: Occidental is the pet oil company of the Gore family.

Not that shrub doesn't have pet oil companies, but Occidental isn't his.
While vice president Al Gore gave Occidental a deal that made teapot dome
look small.
 
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>> Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
>>> gargantuan sum of money...
>>>
>>> Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
>>>
>>> CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
>>> executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
>>> the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
>>> in U.S. corporate history.
>>>
>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occidentalpetroleum_pay.html?.v=8
>>>
>>> But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them. :(
>>>

>> That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
>> industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet). For gas
>> to be headed towards the $4/gallon mark and the CEO's and oil
>> shareholders making obscene profits is just not right. They should be
>> hurting along with the rest of the country,

>
> Why?
>
> The rest of the country really isn't hurting that much - sure we're
> spending more on gas, but demand hasn't gone down significantly, nor are
> people starving to put gas in their cars.


This only shows the stupidity of some (most?) Americans. I have 2 little
4 bangers and just to drive the 11 mile round trip to see my friend is
over a dollar. I can ride a bike there but sometimes I am carrying
computer equipment. It is a LITTLE car I drive and all the stuff fits.
So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
>
>> not getting richer at the expense of everyone else in the country.

>
> Would you prefer a gov't owned oil industry - like Mexico or Venezuela
> (and I presume many middle eastern countries) have?


If you mean a Bush owned oil industry, then Hell no! I know the CEOs
take an unfair share of the money, but the government would set up so
many study committees that it would take more money than the CEOs cost.

>
>> Of course, you don't see Bush even thinking about an SUV gas guzzler
>> tax either.

>
> Why should he?


Because after 8 years he should be remembered for getting at least one
thing right.
>
>> Bill Baka

Again.
 
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?


>Again.


People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:

1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.

2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.

3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff from
Home Depot, Lowes, etc.

4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and the
SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job. Some
people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
either.

5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have made
it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.
 
"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?

>
>>Again.

>
> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only
> have
> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>
> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it,
> and
> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the
> snow.
>
> 2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
> safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
> putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.
>
> 3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff
> from
> Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
>
> 4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and
> the
> SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job.
> Some
> people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
> either.
>
> 5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have
> made
> it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.
>


Number 6, they might just want one.
 
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 06:49:05 -0500, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?

>>
>>>Again.

>>
>> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only
>> have
>> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>>
>> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it,
>> and
>> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the
>> snow.
>>
>> 2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
>> safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
>> putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.
>>
>> 3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff
>> from
>> Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
>>
>> 4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and
>> the
>> SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job.
>> Some
>> people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
>> either.
>>
>> 5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have
>> made
>> it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.
>>

>
>Number 6, they might just want one.
>

There is that, too.
 
On Apr 9, 5:41 am, Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> >So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
> >Again.

>


Many many excuses here...

> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:


Or they could buy three Ford Focus for the price of one SUV.
>
> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.


First of all, we are aiming at SUPERSIZED SUVs here and that got
nothing to do with the capacity of a 4x4 to handle snow. Supersized
Unnecessary Vehicles are deadly to other people and, pollute
unncessarily and are often driven by undertrained drivers while
chatting on the phone.
>
> 2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
> safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
> putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.


OK, minivans are better at that and have lower bumpers as well as
better aerodynamics.

>
> 3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff from
> Home Depot, Lowes, etc.


And why don't you rent U-Haul?
>
> 4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and the
> SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job. Some
> people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
> either.


Exactly, two wrongs don't make a right.

>
> 5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have made
> it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.


Federal laws made it easy for the Big Three to compete in the only
area they could against the smarter, more efficient Japanese and
European cars: GET BIGGER. Big is Good, Big is Beautiful, and Big
feeds the Big Three the best.
 
On Apr 9, 7:49 am, "di" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have
> > made
> > it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.

>
> Number 6, they might just want one.-


Lions and monkeys don't want the same. Lions dream of big and pompous.
Monkeys are more into practical, fun things like bikes, motorcycles
and EVs. And they are beautiful, just not pompous.

The only areawhere you are #1 is in ribbons...

http://blogorelli.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ribbons.gif
 
On Apr 9, 5:41 am, Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> >So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
> >Again.

>
> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>
> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.


Don't confuse Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles with 4x4s. I quote
here...

There is often confusion as to the difference between 4X4s and SUVs.
This leads to criticisms of 4X4 vehicles in the media that should
actually be directed at SUVs...

For example...

Psychology
SUV safety concerns are compounded by a perception among some
consumers that SUVs are safer for their drivers than standard cars.
According to G. C. Rapaille, a psychological consultant to automakers
(as cited in Gladwell, 2004), many consumers feel safer in SUVs simply
because their ride height makes "[their passengers] higher and
dominate and look down (sic). That you can look down [on other people]
is psychologically a very powerful notion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-wheel_drive

So SUVs are the favorite vehicle of the wannabe Napoleons that want to
feel "superior," not that of the real adventurous people like these...

http://www.outback4x4challenge.com/images/20051lg.jpg
 
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:41:16 GMT, Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:

>People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
>money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>
>1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
>anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.
>

That would explain why the most common vehicle stuck in the middle of
the snow bank is a SUV. We didn't have SUVs back in the 1960s and got
to work just fine in Michigan.

>2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
>safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
>putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.


Well, my mid-sized car would take two child seats in the back and have
room for another kid. It could carry two adults and four kids, two in
child seats.

>3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff from
>Home Depot, Lowes, etc.


If it doesn't have a 4 foot by 8 foot bed, it is just like any other
vehicle. Pick up drivers are probably laughing their asses off over
this one.

>4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and the
>SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job. Some
>people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
>either.


Interestingly, most SUVs can barely carry their own weight, and that
includes most of the ones you see on the road. You have to pick your
SUV or pickup carefully to get one that can carry a payload.

>5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have made
>it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.


Bull - the market is what killed the station wagon, not safety
regulations. If a modern station wagon was built (arguably a Pacifica
is one), it could easily be safer than a SUV - way safer.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Dave Head wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?

>
>
>>Again.

>
>
> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>


That's the reason some people drive them. Others drive them for no good
reason other than we have a thing called freedom in the US.

> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.
>


I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove by
them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because they
couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they thought
their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that hadn't yet
been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass" their SUV really is.
 

Similar threads