Ride an SUB not an SUV



"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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
>


This doesn't make any sense at all to me, I guess you need to explain it.
But then again, not much you ever say makes much sense.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> writes:

>>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.


I wonder if there's a correlation between the upsurge of
popularity of SUVs, and the release of the film: Dante's Peak.

The SUV that starred in that flick could survive anything
Hollywood threw at it.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.


Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with the all
terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.

DPH
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


ROFL! I had this conversation earlier this year, when an SUV-driving,
rabid modern Republican began *****ing about gas prices and declaring
that the government had better do something to bring the price down.
(Yup. Irony abounded). She gave most of the arguments described here.
I drove to work in a blizzard- twice as far as she did- in my 16 year
old Volvo 240. Didn't have the slightest problem. In fact I've not had
any more trouble with the Volvo in Minnesota snow than I did with my old
Bronco II (although the BII *did* drive through unplowed streets after a
28" snowfall without any trouble, but that kind of thing is really rare).

<snip>

> >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.


An SUV *is* a station wagon. Don't tell anyone.

BTW speaking of modern station wagons:

http://www.volvocars.us/models/v50/

http://www.volvocars.us/models/v70/

http://www.volvocars.us/models/xc70/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >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.

>
> Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
> the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.


You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.
 
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:31:55 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >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.

>>
>> Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
>> the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.

>
>You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
>deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.


And its the main reason you can't do what the anti-SUV'ers suggest, which is to
rent one when you need one. The rentals all have smooth tires, and you then
get stuck anyway, 4WD or not.

DPH
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]...
> >> > "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.
>

And Billions have been squandered to waste an corruption in Iraq - with
NEGATIVE results.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >>

> > 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?


Your question is nonsensical.

>What does the
> amount of money we are spending in Iraq have to do with urban planning,

when
> you get down to it?
>

This has got to be Ideological Ignorance.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Clark F Morris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:41:56 -0700, "Baxter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>

> >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.


Still the Gamblers Excuse. It's past time for surgery.
 
"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:31:55 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >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.
>>>
>>> Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
>>> the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.

>>
>>You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
>>deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.

>
> And its the main reason you can't do what the anti-SUV'ers suggest, which
> is to
> rent one when you need one. The rentals all have smooth tires, and you
> then
> get stuck anyway, 4WD or not.
>
> DPH


I've never seen a rental car with worn-out tires.
 
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:54:27 GMT, "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:31:55 -0500, Tim McNamara <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Dave Head <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >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.
>>>>
>>>> Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
>>>> the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.
>>>
>>>You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
>>>deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.

>>
>> And its the main reason you can't do what the anti-SUV'ers suggest, which
>> is to
>> rent one when you need one. The rentals all have smooth tires, and you
>> then
>> get stuck anyway, 4WD or not.
>>
>> DPH

>
>I've never seen a rental car with worn-out tires.
>

They're not worn-out, they're "all season", which, in deep snow, are about as
useful as tits on a boar hog.

DPH
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> > 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?

>
> Your question is nonsensical.


Obviously you don't have an answer then.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Clark F Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>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.


Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
indefinitely.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >>
> >> > 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?

> >
> > Your question is nonsensical.

>
> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
>

No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might be
more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in the
news.
 
"Matthew T. Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Clark F Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>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.

>
> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
> indefinitely.


Then we become a fully-colonian power!!!
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >>
>> >> > 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?
>> >
>> > Your question is nonsensical.

>>
>> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
>>

> No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might be
> more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in the
> news.


I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
 
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable techniques...If
> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)


Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
no need to be polite.
 
"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> techniques...If
>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)

>
> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> no need to be polite.


It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research ever
can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say, "You
already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they were
riding.
 
"george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>>> techniques...If
>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)

>>
>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>> no need to be polite.

>
> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research ever
> can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say, "You
> already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they were
> riding.


Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
 
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>>>> techniques...If
>>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
>>>
>>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>>> no need to be polite.

>>
>> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
>> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
>> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
>> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they
>> were riding.

>
> Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
>


You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.
 

Similar threads