TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists

[Mike]

Mark Jones wrote:

> If it wasn't so cold, I would go for a long bike ride. We need some warm weather, but it is
> months away.

No, you just need some warm clothes. Get a pair of gloves or lobster claw mittens, a toque, a
windproof jacket, and some boots that'll keep your feet dry. You'll be all set for running errands
around town. Of course, there's the chance you'll be mistaken for a DUI POB, but hey, you'll be out
there and riding, not driving and getting out of shape.

 

[Raoul Duke]

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

> Oh I've no doubt he's "earned" them, I'm just sick of paying for the filth and carnage they
> produce when he moves them.
> --
> zk

Carnage? I think you're getting a bit carried away.

Dave

 

[Pete]

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote
> I've heard people talk about SUVs and large sedans getting 25-30 mpg. I
also
> do mileage for our MPVs/SUVs/autos (we transport disabled adults). Even
the
> units not transporting wheelchairs and are relatively unloaded don't get anywhere near the
> purported mpg readings, ESPECIALLY the SUVs. And we're
not
> talking V8 Excursions.
>

My old 96 Jeep GC averaged 15 mpg over its lifetime of mostly intown driving. 4.0L straight 6.

Glad I got rid of it.

Pete

 

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:41:12 -0600, <[email protected]>, "Mark Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>They look like successful wage earners to me because they can afford to buy one.

To me they look like puffy lump scumbags and tax cheating weasels on the rare occasions when they
pull their heads far enough out of their asses.

Many of those glitzy toy-trucks are leased and there are huge tax benefits given to people who buy
them. US auto makers get tax breaks for producing these gas guzzlers too.

It's perverse.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/22303.htm http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1000/et1000s10.html
--
zk

 

[Mark Jones]

"Raoul Duke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Oh I've no doubt he's "earned" them, I'm just sick of paying for the filth and carnage they
> > produce when he moves them.
> > --
> > zk
>
> Carnage? I think you're getting a bit carried away.
He is on a crusade so he can make things up as he goes. A bit melodramatic and over the top.

 

[Ken -Lsqny)]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:26:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> spewed:

>"H. M. Leary" wrote:
>>
>> Well, professooor, I thought you were a strong advocate for freedom of choice.
>>
>> I guess only for bicycle helmets, not Suv's.
>
>My standards are different for behaviors that affect only ones self, and behaviors that
>affect others.
>
>IOW, I don't care if you wear your hair in purple spikes, listen avidly to William Shatner records,
>spend your time collecting huge balls of twine, or watch reruns of Gilligan's Island all day. And I
>don't care if you ride your bike with or without a helmet.
>
>But if you drive a bloated tank that puts my family at increased risk from side collisions, blocks
>my view of other traffic, increases my country's dependence on foreign oil, glares its headlights
>in my eyes, makes excessive noise with its macho tires... that's a different matter.

You left out SUVs causing cancer, world hunger, nail fungus and tooth decay. There seems to
be a huge push to remove SUVs from the land and punish their owners, but using wild
arguments like that are going a bit overboard. Hey, I drive a smaller, more efficient car
than most of you, ('93 Honda Del Sol), and wouldn't buy an SUV or any truck, but this is
getting out of hand. It's a personal decision to buy a large vehicle, and that should be
respected. We ought to be happy that we live in a country with a standard of living that
allows us such choices. Look at the poor brits and Europeans with the lousy little ****
boxes they are forced to put up with, whether they like it or not. Cheers, Ken (NY)
Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________

A reminder: Why we are fighting: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/AmericaAttacked.htm

email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea-- massive,difficult to redirect,
awe-inspiring,entertaining and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it. -Anonymous

 

[Zippy The Pinhe]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Many of those glitzy toy-trucks are leased and there are huge tax benefits
given to people who buy them. US auto makers get tax breaks for producing these gas guzzlers too.
>
> It's perverse.

I've never wanted an SUV before this. But if they **** people like you off, they can't be all bad.

 

[Raoul Duke]

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

> But how is this for a concept:
>
> Make your vehicle choice based on reason rather than sex appeal, marketing hype. If a small car
> will suffice rather than a large one, choose the
small
> car.

Except when we're talking about motorcycles, of course.

Dave

 

[Ken -Lsqny)]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:48:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> spewed:

>"Ken [NY)" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:15:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, I don't believe all personal decisions should be respected. You've certainly come across
>> >people who have made truly stupid personal decisions. Did you respect them, too?
>>
>> Yes, I do. It's something I learned through the years. If two men want to have anal sex,
>> it's their business, not mine - as long as it doesn't bother me or is illegal.
>
>Come on, Ken, choose something a little more extreme.
>
>Would you respect a kid's decision to, say, take the money given by parents to pay for college, and
>blow it on drugs?

That would of course be illegal. But if he is making a choice in his life and it does not
affect me, sure I would respect it. It's one of the foundations of freedom to make personal
choices. I wouldn't even question the parents' choice of handing over money to the kid
directly - they will learn soon enough.

>Would you respect a person's decision to see how fast their car can go on an icy freeway?

Illegal and could affect the health and welfare of others. Of course that is different.

>How about a person's decision to go AWOL from the armed forces because their superior was a
>different race?

Illegal again.

>In fact, if you check out the Darwin awards, there are hundreds of people whose stupid personal
>decisions are mocked mercilessly. And rightfully so. Anyone who thinks there's no such thing as a
>stupid decision is too liberal for me!

I agree that stupid decisions are made every day by reasoned people. But they learn from
mistakes. Baden Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts in England taught his adult leaders
that children learn best from mistakes. Powell used the example of a scout pitching his tent
in a bramble patch. He will do it once, but never twice. Adult scout leaders are taught to
let the kid who ignores advice to do what he thinks is right as long as there is no danger
of serious injury. And if someone wants to buy a 12 mpg vehicle, maybe he will not be able
to afford to drive it eventually and once the macho image wears off. But I don't think that
Bin Laden is getting funds when an SUV is driven. That is a stretch. Regards, Ken (NY)
Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________

A reminder: Why we are fighting: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/AmericaAttacked.htm

email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea-- massive,difficult to redirect,
awe-inspiring,entertaining and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it. -Anonymous

 

[Richard Ryan]

> TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists

What a crock, how about the 17 million boats in use, they suck down fuel at a much higher rate than
SUV's. How about vans? I've been driving vans for 30 years, using them for everything from scuba
diving to transporting bikes to events. Lousy gas mileage, but great for transporting stuff. I'll
agree that it would be a good thing to see more efficient vehicles, but the assumption on the part
of all the politically correct people out there is that no one is working on building more efficient
vehicles. The automotive industry will be introducing a lot of hybrid vehicles over the next few
years. Ford will have an SUV that gets 40 mpg. on the market this year. **** Ryan

 

[Mike Demicco]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 09:24:35 -0800, Cycle America/Nat. Bicycle Greenway wrote:

> TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

This whole thing is dumb. The root cause is overpopulation (i.e., too many drivers) and the low
price of gas. Maybe people don't remember the oil shortages of the 70's when gas prices shot up and
people stopped buying big cars. Also, why just pick on SUVs? I see a lot of full sized pickup trucks
on the roads with empty beds and, as a cyclist, I hate those overwide dual wheeled versions that
take up the whole lane. At least an SUV can hold a bunch of passengers. The F series is Ford's
biggest seller.

 

[Edward Dike]

richard ryan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:HMnT9.14853$3v.2448@sccrnsc01...
| > TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists
|
| What a crock, how about the 17 million boats in use, they suck down fuel
at
| a much higher rate than SUV's. How about vans? I've been driving vans for
30
| years, using them for everything from scuba diving to transporting bikes
to
| events. Lousy gas mileage, but great for transporting stuff. I'll agree
that
| it would be a good thing to see more efficient vehicles, but the
assumption
| on the part of all the politically correct people out there is that no one is working on building
| more efficient vehicles. The automotive industry
will
| be introducing a lot of hybrid vehicles over the next few years. Ford will have an SUV that gets
| 40 mpg. on the market this year. **** Ryan
|
How about the fuels used by the limousine liberal, jet setting, conspicuous consumption Hollywood
elite who are pushing this tripe?

Using the assumptions of Arrianne Huffington:-Arab money is going to terrorists, I can just as
accurately throw out the acusation that granola bar munching cyclist support terrorists, given the
frequent Arab ownership of convenience stores. Local commentators state that Huffington has a track
record of Arab bashing, and her only credentials are a big pile of money. Had I a cause to push, I
would suggest she get off my side. ED3

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"richard ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:HMnT9.14853$3v.2448@sccrnsc01...

> What a crock, how about the 17 million boats in use, they suck down fuel
at
> a much higher rate than SUV's. How about vans? I've been driving vans for
30
> years, using them for everything from scuba diving to transporting bikes
to
> events. Lousy gas mileage, but great for transporting stuff.

The problem is not boats or people hauling stuff in their vans on weekends, but millions of people
driving oversized vehicles to work every day while hauling nothing but their own fat ass.

> I'll agree that it would be a good thing to see more efficient vehicles, but the
assumption
> on the part of all the politically correct people out there is that no one is working on building
> more efficient vehicles. The automotive industry
will
> be introducing a lot of hybrid vehicles over the next few years. Ford will have an SUV that gets
> 40 mpg. on the market this year.

Assumtions about assumtptions aside, people continue to buy SUVs in spite of the noxious
environmental and political ramifications. It's high time someone raised a stink about it. Hats off
to Ms. Huffington -- so far the only one with "balls" enough to do it.

Matt O.

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:41:27 -0500, richard ryan wrote:

>> TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists
>
> I'll agree that it would be a good thing to see more efficient vehicles, but the assumption on the
> part of all the politically correct people out there is that no one is working on building more
> efficient vehicles.

As an amusing aside, I was in a friend's office yesterday. She has quite a collection of classic old
VW ads. One of them deals with the gas-guzzling cars most Americans drove at the time of the ad
(late '50s to early 60s). Their punch line was that the VW got an amazing 25mpg.

Worth thinking about. This was a 1200cc little, lightweight car, and could only manage 25mpg. But
that was advertised as amazing mileage. Of course, the '61 Chrysler I had for a while, and traded in
on a VW, got 8mpg in city driving, so it was pretty good for the time.

My new Subaru Forester (which is not really an SUV, but...) gets 27mpg. The industry has improved
performance/mileage over the years, even despite these monster trucks.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The _`\(,_ | common welfare was my
business; charity, mercy, forbearance, (_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The
dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
--Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

 

[Frank Krygowski]

richard ryan wrote:
>
> > TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists
>
> What a crock, how about the 17 million boats in use, they suck down fuel at a much higher rate
> than SUV's.

My bet is the gallons of crude consumed by SUVs in a year completely dwarfs the amount consumed by
boats. Unless you're talking about oil tankers, that is!

> How about vans? I've been driving vans for 30 years, using them for everything from scuba diving
> to transporting bikes to events. Lousy gas mileage, but great for transporting stuff.

And I'll bet SUV consumption beats van consumption, too - with this kicker: Seems to me, vans are
bought more often for practical reasons, such as _really_ having to haul stuff. The SUV drivers I
know seem to buy them for fantasy, as in "Well, I may want to have a picnic in the middle of the
desert some day," or "What if it snows? I may get stuck in my front-wheel-drive car!" or "I feel
safer in an SUV."

All are fantasy.

> I'll agree that it would be a good thing to see more efficient vehicles, but the assumption on the
> part of all the politically correct people out there is that no one is working on building more
> efficient vehicles.

a) I hope you're not calling _me_ politically correct! My liberal friends certainly don't!

b) The "assumption" you refer to is entirely your invention, and is irrelevant to boot. Whatever
technology does make, say, a Ford Excretion get 40 mpg, will make a Focus get about 80 mpg. The
first is still a waste.

Would a "more efficient" one of these somehow look like a good idea to you?

http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Doug Huffman]

This Sunday past, I drove 650 miles in nine hours and a bit (through the Baltimore- DC corridor and
through snowfall that made their papers) at 55+ miles per gallon. 2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon TDI
(new technology diesel).

When I haul my Vanguard (thank you for the Vanguard) then I use a New Beetle TDI and a small trailer
and get about 49 miles per gallon - but look great.

"richard ryan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:HMnT9.14853$3v.2448@sccrnsc01...
> > TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists
>
> What a crock, how about the 17 million boats in use, they suck down fuel
at
> a much higher rate than SUV's. How about vans? I've been driving vans for
30
> years, using them for everything from scuba diving to transporting bikes
to
> events. Lousy gas mileage, but great for transporting stuff. I'll agree
that
> it would be a good thing to see more efficient vehicles, but the
assumption
> on the part of all the politically correct people out there is that no one is working on building
> more efficient vehicles. The automotive industry
will
> be introducing a lot of hybrid vehicles over the next few years. Ford will have an SUV that gets
> 40 mpg. on the market this year. **** Ryan

 

[Sparhawk]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 18:08:00 -0600, "Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>richard ryan <[email protected]> wrote in message news:HMnT9.14853$3v.2448@sccrnsc01...
>| > TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists
>|
>| What a crock, how about the 17 million boats in use, they suck down fuel
>at
>| a much higher rate than SUV's. How about vans? I've been driving vans for
>30
>| years, using them for everything from scuba diving to transporting bikes
>to
>| events. Lousy gas mileage, but great for transporting stuff. I'll agree
>that
>| it would be a good thing to see more efficient vehicles, but the
>assumption
>| on the part of all the politically correct people out there is that no one is working on building
>| more efficient vehicles. The automotive industry
>will
>| be introducing a lot of hybrid vehicles over the next few years. Ford will have an SUV that gets
>| 40 mpg. on the market this year. **** Ryan
>|
>How about the fuels used by the limousine liberal, jet setting, conspicuous consumption Hollywood
>elite who are pushing this tripe?
>
>Using the assumptions of Arrianne Huffington:-Arab money is going to terrorists, I can just as
>accurately throw out the acusation that granola bar munching cyclist support terrorists, given the
>frequent Arab ownership of convenience stores. Local commentators state that Huffington has a track
>record of Arab bashing, and her only credentials are a big pile of money. Had I a cause to push, I
>would suggest she get off my side. ED3

Diana Ross is doing all she can to reduce the number of drivers on the road. She was recently cited
for DUI after being stopped for going the wrong way on a one way street.

After carefully considering what the anti-SUV forks are saying, I have decided to no drive an SUV
anymore so I am trading it in on a 12 cyclinder HumVee!

If you don't like what I drive, **** you!

Sparhawk

 

[Ken]

"Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> How about the fuels used by the limousine liberal, jet setting, conspicuous consumption Hollywood
> elite who are pushing this tripe?
>
> Using the assumptions of Arrianne Huffington:-Arab money is going to terrorists,

I thought Arriana Huffington was a Republican lobbiest. I assume the point of these ads was to get
people thinking and she appears to have succeeded at that.

 

[Gary German]

re:
> Using the assumptions of Arrianne Huffington:-Arab money is going to terrorists,

Well, Saudi Arabia and other conservative Persian Gulf countries DO have a history of funneling lots
of money to madrasas which teach hate of the West, and to various "charities" which are fronts for
the terrorists. So, it's not much of a stretch to connect the dots.

Of course, it's all just a parody of the "drugs fund terrorists" ads. Personally, I'd bet that SUV's
fund more terrorism than drugs, if for no other reason than the sheer dollar volume of money that
accrues to Persian Gulf countries from oil sales.

Gary German

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"David L. Johnson >" <David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> As an amusing aside, I was in a friend's office yesterday. She has quite a collection of classic
> old VW ads. One of them deals with the gas-guzzling cars most Americans drove at the time of the
> ad (late '50s to early 60s). Their punch line was that the VW got an amazing 25mpg.

> Worth thinking about. This was a 1200cc little, lightweight car, and could only manage 25mpg. But
> that was advertised as amazing mileage.

> Of course, the '61 Chrysler I had for a while, and traded in on a VW, got 8mpg in city driving, so
> it was pretty good for the time.

Pity, an old Slant-6 Dart, etc., could do at least that good. So could a Volvo. VWs were cheap,
though. (What happened to that?)

> My new Subaru Forester (which is not really an SUV, but...) gets 27mpg. The industry has improved
> performance/mileage over the years, even despite these monster trucks.

Well, yes and no. They've definately improved performance and economy with respect to size. The
problem is that they keep selling us bigger and bigger vehicles. An illustrative example is the new
Saturn Ion -- 400lb heavier than the S-Series it replaces, but hardly different.

Many Americans would be well served by cars like the Mercedes A-Class, but the industry isn't
offering us that choice.

Matt O.