Dum-Dems: SUV = Terror.....?!?!?!?! - Page 2

MichaeltheGreat · January 10, 2003, 21:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Ubergeek
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.

So what's the purported effect? Using a tiny percentage less petroleum products is going to make all the al Qutb and al Maududi inspired fundie fanatics of the world love us and our values?

"You's with us, or yore one o' them!"

"If you ________, you're supporting terrorism and being un-Amerkin"

"A red under every bed"

****ing national neurosis, is all it is. How about if you're a brainless neurotic with no sense of proportion (or no sense period) you're supporting terrorism by running amok like a whiny little twit?

chequita guevara · January 10, 2003, 21:46

I've been under quite a few beds in my time.

Cyclotron · January 10, 2003, 21:52

But have you been under all of them? Presumably simultaneously?

MtG, I think the ad does not mean that terrorists will love us for cutting fuel consumption. The idea is to keep them from making money off our prodigious gas consumption.

MichaeltheGreat · January 10, 2003, 21:58

I was being sarcastic.

I'm fairly sick of everyone with some axe to grind using the "helping terrorists" line, or the "we're at war" line to push their agendas.

Berzerker · January 10, 2003, 22:14

Quote:

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!

Lol, on the other hand, higher taxes can mean more foreign aid, some of which goes to the ME. I would have liked to have seen a commercial showing Joe. Joe is a taxpayer. Joe is taxed by Congress. Congress sends some of Joe's money to Middle Eastern countries. Some of those Middle Eastern countries give money to terrorists. Taxes = terrorism!

Why go after SUV's when they could have gone after Congress and taxes? But it is very amusing to see people get mad about the ads when they don't have a problem with the drug ads that make the same link between drug users and terrorism.

Boris Godunov · January 10, 2003, 22:16

That sounds like something one of them thar Taly-banners would say.

Berzerker · January 10, 2003, 22:23

Those Taly-banners were getting our taxdollars before 9/11

Six Thousand Year Old Man · January 10, 2003, 22:56

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

Thanks for confirming the stereotype of SUV drivers, rah... (selfish, indifferent to the concerns of other drivers).

Shi Huangdi · January 10, 2003, 23:01

I think it is not like you're funding terror with gass usage. Our government freely permits trade with Saudi Arabia and the mid-east, and it'll be their call if trade with them is against our national interest...

Ramo · January 10, 2003, 23:04

So this campaign was meant to be taken seriously?

Guynemer · January 10, 2003, 23:34

Couple things here--

Hysterical title for this thread. Arianna Huffington may be many things, but a Democrat she is definitely NOT. She is an independant conservative reformer. Admittedly, a rare breed, so some confusion is expected.

Secondly, of course these ads are an exaggeration. They're an obvious takeoff of those hyperbolic Drugs = Terrorisms ads that started running last year. No one actually thinks that SUV owners support terrorism. What the ads are trying to do is to get the American consumers to ****ing THINK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS for once. As a people, we are very into instant gratification, me-me-me now-now-now. Our government is the same way--as already pointed out, we were throwing money at our buddies the Taliban when they were burning poppy fields. After all, who could foresee that a brutal, murderous, barbaric regime whose every principle--save one--would use that foreign aid to foster terrorists? Shocking, isn't it?

Anyway, back to the point--the vast majority of people do NOT need SUVs, and that includes you, Rah. The climate I live in is no better or worse than yours, and the roads in Michigan are much worse than those in Illinois. I have always driven small cars, and have never gotten into a single accident. If the cars in your family were getting splattered every winter, I suspect it might have more to do with the driving ability of those involved than on the type of car you drove. If you live in Duluth or Fargo or Sault Sainte Marie or Rochester, that's one thing. But folks in Chicago and Detroit do not need SUVs because of climate conditions. Christ on a crutch, this nonsense gets my blood pressure up.

Adam Smith · January 10, 2003, 23:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer
Arianna Huffington ... is an independant conservative reformer.

Definitely NOT. She is clearly a Raelian.

Guynemer · January 10, 2003, 23:41

She is a little firecracker, isn't she?

Zkribbler · January 10, 2003, 23:59

Imran and rah have a point. Not all SUV's are gas guzzlers. On a rah's Passport, the EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway) are: 17 mpg / 20 mpg. Sure, it doesn't match the milage of my Miata, but then again I can't carry a 8x4 piece of drywall.

Most of the people here are talking about those huge monsters that drink gas.

Like that guy I had to wait for as I was making a left turn the other day. The closer his SUV got to the intersection, the slower it went. And I continued to wait because I knew if I tried to zip in front of him, he'd suddenly speed up and broadside me. The light turned orange and he slowed a bit more, but didn't stop. The light turned red and he entered the intersection, cruising through, chatting blythly on his cell phone.

The good news is that, if God answers prayers, he's dead by now.

Ben Kenobi · January 11, 2003, 00:17

The only reason one can connect oil consumption with terror is the fact that oil is bought from the middle east.

The solution?

BUY CANADIAN!

Save the world and own your own SUV!

cia · January 11, 2003, 02:39

I'm just going to climb into my nuclear-powered truck and squish all them pesky terrorists!

MosesPresley · January 11, 2003, 17:00

Mock commercial from GTA 3

Maibatsu Monstrosity SUV (commercial)

Man: "I'm a marketing manager who lives in the suburbs and commutes to work on the highway. I live alone, so of course I needed a car that can seat 12 and is equipped to drive across arctic tundra...it just makes me feel better!"

Woman: "Phil and I just had another kid. So of course we need a bigger SUV. Being a mom is hard, with soccer, football and lacrosse practice, so we bought the new Maibatsu Monstrosity. It's so big...we lost little Joey in the back and couldn't find him for and hour! When I'm rushing to the mall, or talking on my cell phone, I know me and my family are safe. The Maibatsu Monstrosity has 4-wheel drive, and in amphibious mode...it can cross rivers. So far I've only hit a few puddles, but it's good to know it's there. With the time I save taking shortcuts through the strip-mall parking lot I can focus on the important things. Like gazing longingly at the pool boy or...buying more exercise equipment off the TV. So what if it gets 3 miles to the gallon!? I'm a mom, not a conservationist!"

Woman Voice: "The new Maibatsu Monstrosity...mine's bigger!!"

Imran Siddiqui · January 12, 2003, 02:20

Quote:

That's because life is politics

Life is more economics. As a communist living in capitalist society, you should be aware of this

.

Skyjack666 · January 13, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Guynemer

Anyway, back to the point--the vast majority of people do NOT need SUVs, and that includes you, Rah. The climate I live in is no better or worse than yours, and the roads in Michigan are much worse than those in Illinois. I have always driven small cars, and have never gotten into a single accident.

Ok by that reasoning we should take away any money or any- THING you don't need...wreaks of communism.
This is America, you can have $80,000,000,000.00 and nobody can tell you you can't.

It's the same whiney reasoning behind 're-distribution of wealth'.

Besides, the Government/Auto/Oil Industry are the ones behind burying and clean technology because they are not ready to give up control of the world just yet.

rah · January 13, 2003, 16:44

HAHAHAHA, yes, WHO THE HECK does he think he is to tell me what I think I need or don't need. I do a lot of projects around the house that require considerable room for schlepping materials. Most of the time we have to take both vehicles to fit everything in in one trip.

Or I guess he doesn't have a family to worry about their safety. No one is going to tell me that it's not safer to be driving a four-wheel drive vehicle with a higher ground clearance in the snow. (both of ours rated low on the tipover tests) And with all the current trucks and MINIVANS on the road, being up a bit higher drastically improves visability. He's the exact type of person that can K*** my A**. When you ban every 18 wheeler, construction truck, pickup truck, minivan, large cars, buses, etc., THEN, and only then, Might I consider giving up my suv.

You can take chances with your family, I prefer to spend a little extra to help the percentages.

RAH

Guynemer · January 13, 2003, 16:44

Come off it, DL. No one is advocating that SUVs be taken away from people. What is being advocated is that people think about the consequences of their choices when it comes to vehicles, and that the government enforce some sort of mileage standards for SUVs, which are conveniently lacking currently.

rah · January 13, 2003, 16:46

What about high performance cars?

Boris Godunov · January 13, 2003, 16:52

I'm still waiting to hear what these commercials have to do with the Democrats or liberals, considering they were put out there by car companies.

SpencerH · January 13, 2003, 18:03

Its obviously a leftist liberal ploy. First they take our SUV's, then our trucks, then our gun racks, then our guns. Its time to bring in Chuck and the NRA RIGHT NOW BEFORE IT GOES TO FAR.

Damn liberals. If I lived anywhere near snow I'd have a 4WD (we may have a 1/2" later in the week-yeah snow day).

Flubber · January 13, 2003, 20:27

I can see the conservation issue. Perhaps we should all be driving fuel efficient cars. Personally, we have a single Honda civic and like Rah I made the decision to live closer in toward work so that I can easily bicycle or take public Transit.

BUT, our next vehicle will likely be some form of SUV--when I look at what we both "need" and "want" from a vehicle, there are a number of smaller and mid-sized SUVs that fit the bill. Gas economy will be a factor in our decision, but more for economic than environmental reasons.

As for the supporting terror fallacy, I think that has been debunked by enough people here. Why not just say that "Existence supports terror"-- since after all, everbody in a modern society uses some petroleum products

Berzerker · January 13, 2003, 21:22

Quote:

As for the supporting terror fallacy, I think that has been debunked by enough people here. Why not just say that "Existence supports terror"-- since after all, everbody in a modern society uses some petroleum products

You contradicted yourself, the fact we all use petroleum products doesn't mean terrorists don't get oil money, it just means it's silly to blame oil or drug consumers for what happens to the money once it leaves the hands of the consumers. That's the inherent hypocrisy of both the SUV and drug ads, they single out groups and ignore that "existence supports terror" as you so aptly put it.

Guynemer · January 13, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
What about high performance cars?

The same thing applies. Merely status symbols, driven in large part by men trying to compensate for sexual inadequacies. I imagine the reason the ads target SUVs as opposed to "high performance cars" is that SUVs, in addition to getting poor mileage, have the extra bugaboo of being a menace to other drivers on the road.

Goingonit · January 13, 2003, 22:55

We'll know when coservation becomes a real and important issue for the general public when people start getting rid of their own SUVs without being told to.

mactbone · January 13, 2003, 23:21

My family came back from a trip to Florida 4 or 5 years ago during one of the bigger snowstorms in Northern Indiana and we were the only car on the road coming back from the Airport, because we were the only ones who needed to travel home and had an SUV to do it (Lincoln Navigator). The higher ground clearance makes a big difference when the snow is piled up, especially if you don't live on a major road and it takes days for the plows to come through. Anyways, if you've advanced along the economic scale to the point where you can afford and desire one, I see no reason why anyone should b!tch and moan. My father worked his *ss off to be able to afford nice things and if wants to be able to tool around in a car that can fit our family plus two others, more power to him.

Felch · January 13, 2003, 23:59

I thought the SUV ads were a funny idea. I must admit I thought about something very similar one day when I was at a friend's house getting high. There was some stupid anti-drug ad where the gist was, "Your drug money might support terror, and might is a good enough reason to not do drugs." No proof was offered of course, just the vague insinuation that the British Columbian reefer I was smoking was supporting some terrorist outfit that killed judges and stuff (FARBC?)

Right after that came an ad for Isuzu SUVs. I was flabbergasted. Drug money might support terror, especially drugs like cocaine and heroin, but oil money definitely funds not just terrorism, but the despotic regimes around the world that fund and support Islamicist movements that promote intolerance and hatred.

I don't care if people buy SUVs just like I don't care about people who do drugs. It's not the consumer's fault if the producer is a gangster or a terrorist. Terrorists should be dealt with by the proper authorities, not by the clumsy method of market manipulation.