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

[Richard Ryan]

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

Until very recently diesels have been ignored in this country due to the extremely strict EPA
emission standards. But the introduction of low sulfur content fuels and advances in diesel
technology have enabled the manufacturers to meet the standards. Diesel sales in the US are less
than 1% of new car sales, in Europe they are about 30%. IMO the reintroduction of diesel powered
cars and gas/electric hybrids will solve all of the vehicle related consumption/pollution problems
over the next decade or so. Glad you are happy with your Vanguard. **** Ryan

 

[Edward Dike]

Gary German <gary_g@charter_NOSPAM_.net> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| 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

Blaming motor vehicles for terrorism is intellectual dishonesty. Terroristic behavior is caused by
people, pure and simple. As to the ads, we have onle heard of them. It remains to be seen if they
are actually allowed to run. ED3

 

[Mike Latondress]

Sparhawk <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> 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!
>
Actually we don't have a clue what you drive, it's you we don't like.

 

[Mike Kruger]

> I'm waiting for two purchases right now: a used copy of Unsafe At Any Speed, which I really want
> to read, and I've also bought High And Mighty. I've no doubt that I'll get Huffington's book as
> well, right after I've found a copy of Stupid White Men

If you have any time left, you might want to check into Michael Moore's "Roger and Me". It's not
about SUV's or gas mileage, but it IS about the auto companies, specifically GM ... and I gaurantee
you will never look at a rabbit the same way again.

 

[Gary German]

re:
> Blaming motor vehicles for terrorism is intellectual dishonesty.
Terroristic
> behavior is caused by people, pure and simple.

Nobody is saying that SUV's cause terrorism. But, those bloated land yachts use a lot more gas than
other vehicles, and some of that money does end up in the pocket of terrorists. The point of the ads
is to make people think about how their lifestyle choices are affecting the war on terrorism, the
environment, etc.

Personally, I'd like to see it become "patriotic" to drive a fuel-efficient car, or ride a bike,
rather than steer a Ford Excretion. If we're truly in a war (which I think we are), then that's a
pretty small sacrifice to make. During WWII, folks were limited to 3 gallons of gas per week.

re:
> As to the ads, we have onle heard of them. It remains to be seen if they
are
> actually allowed to run.

The ads ARE running in several markets (Washington, New York, LA, San Francisco, perhaps others). If
you want to see the ads yourself, check out www.thedetroitproject.com

Gary German

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> As to the ads, we have onle heard of them. It remains to be seen if they
are
> actually allowed to run.

Even if they're not in regular rotation, they're being shown on the news.

Matt O.

 

[Alex Colvin]

>Blaming motor vehicles for terrorism is intellectual dishonesty. Terroristic behavior is caused by
>people, pure and simple.

True. about as silly as blaming drug use for terrorism.

>As to the ads, we have onle heard of them. It remains to be seen if they are actually
>allowed to run.

Yeah. They ought to be outlowed. Imagine, suggesting your purchase of a product could change your
life! That's so dishonest!

--
mac the naïf

 

[Edward Dike]

Gary German <gary_g@charter_NOSPAM_.net> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| re:
| > Blaming motor vehicles for terrorism is intellectual dishonesty.
| Terroristic
| > behavior is caused by people, pure and simple.
|
| Nobody is saying that SUV's cause terrorism. But, those bloated land
yachts
| use a lot more gas than other vehicles, and some of that money does end up in the pocket of
| terrorists. The point of the ads is to make people think about how their lifestyle choices are
| affecting the war on terrorism, the environment, etc.
|
| Personally, I'd like to see it become "patriotic" to drive a
fuel-efficient
| car, or ride a bike, rather than steer a Ford Excretion. If we're truly
in
| a war (which I think we are), then that's a pretty small sacrifice to
make.
| During WWII, folks were limited to 3 gallons of gas per week.
|
| re:
| > As to the ads, we have onle heard of them. It remains to be seen if they
| are
| > actually allowed to run.
|
| The ads ARE running in several markets (Washington, New York, LA, San Francisco, perhaps others).
| If you want to see the ads yourself, check
out
| www.thedetroitproject.com
|
| Gary German
|
Well, if 'some' of the money from fuel purchased for an SUV gets into terrorists' hands, then 'some'
money from whatever you drive also does... better quit driving. If you are employed, your job is
somehow, somewhat dependant on a motor vehicle... better quit working. And as power plants often use
fuel oil to generate electricity, you better shut off your lights and computer. Otherwise your part
of the problem as well. ED3

 

[Edward Dike]

Alex Colvin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| >Blaming motor vehicles for terrorism is intellectual dishonesty.
Terroristic
| >behavior is caused by people, pure and simple.
|
| True. about as silly as blaming drug use for terrorism.
|
| >As to the ads, we have onle heard of them. It remains to be seen if they
are
| >actually allowed to run.
|
| Yeah. They ought to be outlowed. Imagine, suggesting your purchase of a product could change your
| life! That's so dishonest!
|
|
|
| --
| mac the naïf

"...True. about as silly as blaming drug use for terrorism...."

Post 9/11, the word 'Terrorism,' to most, has come to mean something other than drug wars in
Bogotá, or tribal feuds in Afghanistan. In spite of that fact, I suspect that like the 'drug use
causes terrorism' ad, which will not cause any drug users to change their habits, the 'SUV causes
terrorism' ad will be equally ineffective in changing anyone's driving habits, although it will
still allowing for much condescension and finger pointing by those swept up in current 'SUVs are
bad' craze brought about by in the politics of envy disguised as legitimate science and
environmentalism.

I would not suggest the ads be outlawed, merely offering skepticism that media outlets will tread
into controversial grounds, be they right or left of political center. ED3

 

[Gary German]

"Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, if 'some' of the money from fuel purchased for an SUV gets into terrorists' hands, then
> 'some' money from whatever you drive also does... better quit driving. If you are employed, your
> job is somehow, somewhat dependant on a motor vehicle... better quit working. And as power plants
> often use fuel oil to generate electricity, you better shut off your lights and computer.
> Otherwise your part of the problem as well. ED3

Well, DUH! Like I said, the point of the ads are just to make people think about their choices. If
we all drive Civics, the terrorists will get less money, and the air will be cleaner. If we all
drive Ford Excretions, the terrorist will get more money, and the air will be dirtier.

Obviously, neither extreme is possible, but there sure are a lot of folks driving solo in their land
yachts every morning when they could be driving something less wasteful (or, riding their bikes!).
For all the talk about "I need it to haul my family, stuff, etc." most SUV's you see on the road are
remarkably empty except for the driver.

Gary German

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Well, if 'some' of the money from fuel purchased for an SUV gets into terrorists' hands, then
> 'some' money from whatever you drive also does... better quit driving. If you are employed, your
> job is somehow, somewhat dependant on a motor vehicle... better quit working. And as power plants
> often use fuel oil to generate electricity, you better shut off your lights and computer.
> Otherwise your part of the problem as well.

Well, life's just a big slippery slope, isn't it, Ed? So why make an effort at all...

Matt O.

 

[Mike Kruger]

"Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well, if 'some' of the money from fuel purchased for an SUV gets into terrorists' hands, then
> 'some' money from whatever you drive also does... better quit driving. If you are employed, your
> job is somehow, somewhat dependant on a motor vehicle... better quit working. And as power plants
> often use fuel oil to generate electricity, you better shut off your lights and computer.
> Otherwise your part of the problem as well.

Well, darned if you haven't summarized the point of the ads extremely well.

We are so dependent on energy, that those who control energy exert control over us. This is not a
good thing. Obviously, we cannot eliminate all energy usage -- nor should we -- but it would be
helpful to us both politically and environmentally to keep this usage from getting out of control.

 

[Edward Dike]

Gary German <gary_g@charter_NOSPAM_.net> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| "Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| > Well, if 'some' of the money from fuel purchased for an SUV gets into terrorists' hands, then
| > 'some' money from whatever you drive also
does...
| > better quit driving. If you are employed, your job is somehow, somewhat dependant on a motor
| > vehicle... better quit working. And as power plants often use fuel oil to generate
| > electricity, you
better
| > shut off your lights and computer. Otherwise your part of the problem as well. ED3
|
| Well, DUH! Like I said, the point of the ads are just to make people
think
| about their choices. If we all drive Civics, the terrorists will get less money, and the air will
| be cleaner. If we all drive Ford Excretions, the terrorist will get more money, and the air will
| be dirtier.
|
| Obviously, neither extreme is possible, but there sure are a lot of folks driving solo in their
| land yachts every morning when they could be driving something less wasteful (or, riding their
| bikes!). For all the talk about "I need it to haul my family, stuff, etc." most SUV's you see on
| the road are remarkably empty except for the driver.
|
| Gary German
|
So a little terrorism is OK, as long as you are not inconvenienced, or deprived of your choices?
Puts you in the same pot in to which you're putting the SUV drivers, ED3

 

[Edward Dike]

Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
|
| > Well, if 'some' of the money from fuel purchased for an SUV gets into terrorists' hands, then
| > 'some' money from whatever you drive also
does...
| > better quit driving. If you are employed, your job is somehow, somewhat dependant on a motor
| > vehicle... better quit working. And as power plants often use fuel oil to generate
| > electricity, you
better
| > shut off your lights and computer. Otherwise your part of the problem as well.
|
| Well, life's just a big slippery slope, isn't it, Ed? So why make an
effort
| at all...
|
| Matt O.

Live as you wish. Just don't take the self righteous stance of sitting in judgment, and advocating
the sacrificial behavior of others while conveniently maintaining your own status quo... which is
precisely what those sponsoring (and apparently buying into) this ad are doing. ED3

 

[Gary German]

"Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So a little terrorism is OK, as long as you are not inconvenienced, or deprived of your choices?
> Puts you in the same pot in to which you're putting the SUV drivers, ED3
>

Well ALL contribute to the problems, Ed. But, our lifestyle choices can greatly lessen or exacerbate
the degree to which we do.

Whenever I exhale, I'm breathing out "greenhouse gases". But, because I've chosen not to drive a
bloated Ford Excretion, I'm contributing less to the problem than those who do.

Gary German

 

[Gary German]

"Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Live as you wish. Just don't take the self righteous stance of sitting in judgment, and advocating
> the sacrificial behavior of others while conveniently maintaining your own status quo... which is
> precisely what those sponsoring (and apparently buying into) this ad are doing. ED3
>
What are do you mean by "conveniently maintaining your own status quo"? I'm not the one that owns
a bloated land yacht. And I can be as judgmental and self righteous as I want to be, thank you
very much.

The ads are merely advocating that we all think about the issues, and make wise decisions in our
personal lives. You can't avoid the fact that choosing to drive a Ford Excretion-class vehicle
contributes more to the problem than those of us who choose other, more efficient, means of
transportation. You've chosen to drive such a vehicle...fine, this is America and you can do that.

But, fortunately, free speech is alive and well in America, and hopefully these ads will make those
who choose to drive these behemoths look self-centered, wasteful, and ridiculous. Sorry if that
lowers the sense of "rugged independence" you get from steering a land yacht to Starbucks.

Gary German

 

[Frank Krygowski]

"Edward Dike, III" wrote:
>
> Live as you wish. Just don't take the self righteous stance of sitting in judgment, and advocating
> the sacrificial behavior of others while conveniently maintaining your own status quo... which is
> precisely what those sponsoring (and apparently buying into) this ad are doing.

Hmm. So if my next door neighbor should decide to burn big smoky piles of garbage in his backyard, I
shouldn't complain?

After all, if I complained, he could say "Dispose of your garbage as you wish. Just don't take the
self righteous stance of sitting in judgment over me, and advocating the sacrificial behavior of me
while conveniently maintaining your own non-burning status quo."

IOW, your position can be used to justify nearly any behavior.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Edward Dike]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| "Edward Dike, III" wrote:
| >
| > Live as you wish. Just don't take the self righteous stance of sitting
in
| > judgment, and advocating the sacrificial behavior of others while conveniently maintaining your
| > own status quo... which is precisely what those sponsoring (and apparently buying into)
this
| > ad are doing.
|
| Hmm. So if my next door neighbor should decide to burn big smoky piles of garbage in his backyard,
| I shouldn't complain?
|
| After all, if I complained, he could say "Dispose of your garbage as you wish. Just don't take the
| self righteous stance of sitting in judgment over me, and advocating the sacrificial behavior of
| me while conveniently maintaining your own non-burning status quo."
|
| IOW, your position can be used to justify nearly any behavior.
|
| --
| Frank Krygowski [email protected]

I guess if you chose to live somewhere that allows for the legitimate burning of garbage in the back
yard, then perhaps you asked for it, presumably so you could continuie to burn your little smoky
piles of garbage.

Otherwise, perhaps you could familiarize yourself with the subject of nuisance law.

ED3

 

[Chris Phillipo]

In article <[email protected]>, "Constable of Indefinite Timeframes, Kevan
\"Elder G\" Smith" <[email protected]> says...
> On 09 Jan 2003 23:58:38 GMT, [email protected] (Jon Isaacs) from AOL http://www.aol.com wrote:
>
> >Ready to go to war to support our gas habit???
>
> No.
>
> How about a car that runs on air?
>
> http://www.theaircar.com/
>
> I am so there.
>

I hear the salesmen are cloned human beings.

 

[Mark Jones]

"Constable of Indefinite Timeframes, Kevan "Elder G" Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
in message
> Funny, but to me Zoot speaks a lot more sense than you.

You and Zoot are a lot alike.