Smartin Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Currently on AOL's front page, they are discussing SUV owners and their contribution to terrorism. This is stemming from the view that SUV's guzzle gas and therefore feed money to the middle east.What they forgot about was all of our cars. I'd like to know why SUV's were singled out as useless gas guzzlers.Anyone have some input? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Show me a V10 Honda Civic and I'll ask with ya'! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />Otherwise it should be obvious. If my car burns half the gas of your car, you paid for twice as much of the 9/11 airline tickets as I did. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me a V10 Honda Civic and I'll ask with ya'! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />Otherwise it should be obvious. If my car burns half the gas of your car, you paid for twice as much of the 9/11 airline tickets as I did. Period. </div></div>This is an oversimplification of a complex problem. SUV's are being used as a scapegoat. We give lots of money to Arab governments and they use it to buy bombs instead of food. Corruption is to blame, not SUV's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 We rank absolutely dead last in the world in foriegn aid as a function of per capita income. We give virtually nothing to the arab governments, or any other for that matter. Just because Jesus told the local Republican party boss to lead you to believe otherwise doesn't make it true.We give our money to Exxon. They give it to the middle-eastern oil merchants. From there....let's just say that the bookkeeping gets a little funny.You buy gas, and it's bad for the country and the world. You buy less, and it's not only beneficial to mankind but patriotic as well. Just don't expect any money-grubbing politicians to tell you that. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Sealock Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Only an idiot would believe that suv's support terrorism. Let's face it, we need the petroleum for pretty much everything in our lives, and our country has not been able to produce enough on it's own without foreign trade. All of us with classic cars then, because they obviously do not get the gas mileage of a "Honda", would then essentially support terrorism. And by the way, some of us can't fit all of our beautiful children into a "Honda". Under this warped way of thinking, any time you buy anything made of plastic, which is petroleum based, you support terrorism. Every item made of plastic in our homes that we purchased, apparently helped support terrorism. Just as the adds during the Super Bowl last year stated that drug use supports terrorism, which was a stretch trying to make a point (and no, I do not support the legalization of any type of currently illegal drug, I happen to be in law enforcement), now there are certain environmentalists trying to make a point and cause a panic by saying that SUV driver's/ owners support terrorism. It must have been a slow news day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It must have been a slow news day! </div></div> Nope, just a short attention span decade.By the way,.....yes all the other uses of oil support our enemeies just as much as idling the 5.7L to keep the a/c cool at the post office parking lot. But don't let <span style="font-style: italic">that</span> make you recycle anything. God help us if we all start sacrificing our comfortable lifestyles for the benefit of our society and the planet. <span style="font-style: italic">Who knows what's next....<span style="font-weight: bold">THINKING???</span></span> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest my3buicks Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Dave, with your attitude toward this subject, should you be driving a BUICK? Maybe you should start collecting Honda's!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Sealock Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 My family is very heavily into recycling, and I would never support letting the vehicle idle at the post office, Honda or SUV (do you know how many vehicle theft reports I have taken because someone left their vehicle idling at the post office or store!). The fact of the matter is, vehicle's are an essential part of our lives. I am not saying that there are not people who buy SUV's to look good as a part of their "lifestyle" and to impress there friends. But there are also those of us who need the space for our families, which we are heavily committed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I <span style="font-style: italic">drive</span> a four cylinder station wagon (32 mpg) and a four cylinder pickup (23 mpg). I <span style="font-style: italic">collect</span> antique cars! <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> The roughly 25 times larger quantity of gas that both my daily drivers burn over and above the pittance both you and I burn in our cruisers are the point of this thread.Not all environmentalists live on tree bark and chase squirrels in their animal skins. Most are educated, rational people who grasp issues and problems of a magnitude beyond what'll make them happy in the next 20 minutes. Most live quite comfortable lives in the suburbs. And many restore antique cars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Sealock Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I guess my only problem with the way some people approach the subject, is that some think that ALL SUV owners don't care, and are all about maintaining a certain lifestyle or for show. As I previously mentioned, there are those people who obviously do not need them, but feel that they need them "socially". As I said previously, I work in law enforcement, so I am obviously not wealthy enough to put on a show. Regardless of whether I am a college educated thinker or not (which I am), I am always wary of current social issues. Some of the ways that our society has abused our environment disgust me. I am glad that there are people that will stand and point out environmental abuses. I just believe that the blanket statement that ALL SUV owners, regardless of individual circumstance, support terrorism is blatant propaganda.Due to the portion of the country in which I live, the proximity to my other family members (trips which require cargo room), and the size of my family, a minivan or "station wagon" are not a realistic option. I think that it is time to blame the individuals that engage in terrorist activities, and not those trying to correctly raise their families and live their lives. PS- Great thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I just believe that the blanket statement that ALL SUV owners, regardless of individual circumstance, support terrorism is blatant propaganda. </div></div> Propaganda, maybe. <span style="font-style: italic">Blatant</span> proaganda, no way. The reason is the simple truth that oil money is the main source of al qaeda funding. Yes, these scum are responsible for their own actions. But using more gasoline than you have to is the ethical equivalent of walking down dark alleys with $20 bills sticking out of your fishnets.There are many legitmate uses for SUV's. They existed for 30 years before they became status symbols among the <span style="font-style: italic">Nautica</span> set. I used one daily as an environmental inspector for many years. The idea that they're deliberately used to undercut democracy isn't anyone's point that I know of. But I can guarentee you, there was <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> a thought about practicality or need in the development of Porsche, Lexus or BMW SUV's. They, and most others, most definately "<span style="font-style: italic">are all about maintaining a certain lifestyle or for show</span>". Most SUV's are little more than station wagons built of 2 or 4 wheel drive truck chassis. Since these plush bodies are heavier than most truck bodies, the practical carrying capacity of most SUV's is shockingly low. It took several years for some manufacturers to publish any GVW data for them, and when <span style="font-style: italic">Consumers Union</span> finally got some of the data they found that some of them couldn't carry five adults safely (according to the manufacturer). It is thought this is mainly due to high roll centers and handling issues. In fact a Ford Taurus station wagon has more seats and a higher weight carrying capacity than nearly every mid-size SUV on the market, and it burns 30% less fuel. Unless they are taken off-road or used as a tow vehicle, <span style="font-weight: bold">all</span> SUV's are useless except as a strap-on ego enhancer. If you <span style="font-style: italic">need</span> that, well..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smartin Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 I like cars....they are fun. Does it matter what I drive? I like big fat SUV's and Buicks. Does that make me a bad person? At least I don't drive around in a Honda fart can with a 6 foot wing and NOS decals. (NOS = Nitrus, not New Old Stock.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Sealock Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I can see that this is a difficult concept for "bitter, table for one", to understand. I was almost in total agreement with you Dave until your last paragraph, in which you ignorantly used the word "all". It is impossible in this limited amount of space to explain the differences in SUV's. I agree that most of the SUV's on the road are essentially the late '80's, early '90's version of station wagons that consume more gasoline and sit up slightly higher. My vehicle, a Chevrolet Suburban, is not a "strap on" ego enhancer. It was carefully chosen after 12-15 months of looking for a larger vehicle. Most station wagons do not provide the third seat my family needs, and if they do, as the smaller SUV's do, there is no cargo space. Cargo space which, if your family is in need of the third seat, you obviously need. I am not going to "sacrifice" at the expense of not taking my children to see their grandparents on a regular basis, which I could not do in a smaller vehicle. As I previosly pointed out, we enjoy our family, and the closest family member is 80 miles away. And this is only the closest family member/ minimum drive. As far as only being necessary for offroading, you apparently live in the midwest, so you are probably familiar with snow. Next time we get a Northeast Nebraska blizzard, I'll invite you up, let you haul my kids around in the snow in both your station wagon and my Suburban, and you can decide for yourself!It's been interesting. Good Night All! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 There are three....<span style="font-style: italic">three</span>....single teachers at my daughter's school who commute to work in either a Suburban or Tahoe XL. Ya' wanna explain their "need"? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 ....in other words, of course there are people out there who need a large four wheel drive vehicle. Twenty-five years ago it was about 2-3% of the market. Today it's pushing 35%, and families are generally getting smaller.In the mean time, if the average vehicle in the U.S. improved it's fuel economy by 3 mpg, <span style="font-style: italic">just three</span>, this country could curtail middle eastern oil imports entirely and never touch the Alaskan tundra (which, by the way, has about 2-3 months worth of oil max for the U.S. at current consumption rates). That's just the difference between a V6 or a V8 in most mid-size SUV's, and a 4 vs. a V6 in most mid-size cars. But just don't as <span style="font-style: italic">me</span> to drive a car that can't break a 15 second quarter mile on the way to the 7-11! <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">I'm an American, damn it!!!!!</span></span>Cars and guns can be fun. They likewise have intrinsic responsibilities. Most don't pay them any mind at all. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Well, now that we've opened Pandora's box and started discussing things political...While I think the SUV craze perpetuates a silly vehicle in most applications where you see one today the climate that created the demand for them was brought about by several factors that worked together to make them popular:1. Cheap gas, effectively supported by using easy to get, easy to refine (sweet) crude from the mid-East. I've heard the 'seat-mile' argument, and out here in CA, it's a joke. I can't count high enough to tally the 4x4 BIG mutha SUVs on the freeway with one passenger: a 110 pound soccer mom with a cell phone in her ear navigating by gross intimitation.2. Vehicle safety and CAFE legislation with it's stiff requirements. Most SUV's are in a weight class that classifies them as trucks, allowing many to be sold without catalytic converters, CAFE standard restrictions and crashworthiness requirements. This in turn makes them a very affordable alternative to 'coventional' family vehicles... oh, and it only costs several hundred dollars more to manufacuture a tricked out Suburban (or other truck-chassis-based SUV) than the white truck utility version... and they sell for twice as much or more. DEE-troit is making a fortune on these things.3. IRS rules. It's commonly known that you can deduct the cost of your vehicle used for business, but the depreciation deductions are puny AND any car costing over $15,250 is considered a 'luxury' car, and dedutions are restricted. Enter little-known rule (unless you're a tax guy...) about GVW... if it's over 6,000 pounds, you can (1) deduct upto $18,500 in year one... and then depreciate the balance over five years. A considerable difference that burys the $30K or so these things cost, especially for self-employed individuals filing Schedule C. This is why you see so many BIG SUVs/trucks in professional office areas.As taught in Economics 102 or so, the consumer masses, on the average will unerringly chose the least cost option to satisfy the maximum number of requirements. And most are smart enough to see the farce of blaming SUV drivers for funding terrorism. It's a joke. Terrorism is caused by the failure of trying to force people to live in the 21st century using feudal 15th century social tools. It doesn't work. Take away the petrolium production, and the <span style="font-style: italic">entire... all... combined</span> Gross Domestic Product of the Arab countries of Africa and the Middle East is less than that of Finland. Their consumption/production ratio is abysimal. The malcontents of the world will find the resources to do what they do regardless of what car you drive. Or drugs you use (big money 'fuzzy accounting' there.) Or the charities you contribute to.OK. So, now the liberal community has taken target on SUVs. You can add that to gun ownership, private aircraft, personal responsibility, personal accountability and consequences for personal behavior. It's just another liberal effort to 'catagorize' and 'polarize'... rich vs poor, Hyphen-Americans, SUV Drivers vs 'sensible car' Drivers, etc.Finally, for the true environmentalists, if you really want to do something about the environment... become a vegitarian. The impact of SUV's and other autos on the WORLD environment pales in comparison to the resource consumption and environmental damage caused by the production of animal products. Did ya know that in the US, it takes 16 gallons of gasoline to produce one pound of grain-fed beef? That's rotten milage, and we have the most efficient production system by far. Don't even ask about the water... The #1 green house gas is carbon dioxide... closely followed by methane... much of it from bovine flatulence... a standard model Bossy can pump out 100 gallons of methane a day.So... I'll have an Escalade... and yes I'd like leather with that! If Washington really wants to cut energy consumption, then allow the price of fuel to rise to the true world cost by taxing oil importation to cover the cost of defending and securing the sources. When regular unleaded is around $5/gallon I think you'll see an awful lot of bargain prices on big SUVs... and we'll start to pay down the national debt. Which reminds me... how can you have a budget surplus when the national debt is $6.4 trillion? Keep my $600 and pay the mortgage, Washington!Cheers,JMC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smartin Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Well said John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The malcontents of the world will find the resources to do what they do regardless of what car you drive. </div></div> The point is that making it easier for them to do so isn't exactly in anyone's best interest. And by the way, why is it a "liberal community"? Couldn't it just as well be a "conservative community" seeking to limit civil liberties in the name of national security by restricting the market for these things? It's not like "they" haven't done that before!See how well we've been trained. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />Or could it just be people trying to make connections to find out a solution to a difficult problem? After all, we're talking simple basic facts of money flow here, not value judgements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Dave,The point is: Blaming SUV drivers for supporting terrorism because they use more gas is ludicrous. What's next? Heating fuel oil? How about LNG used in power production? The issue is a red herring that seeks to vilify one relatively small consumer group for using a vehicle that has fallen from the graces of those that hold themselves above mere mortals... but only <span style="font-style: italic">after</span> they've traded their gas hogs... or have they?I don't drive one, but I put the vilification in the same catagory as those staunch anti-gun politicians and their blindly following poltroons... the Senators from California that desperately want to deny the citizenery of all firearms... while <span style="font-style: italic">they</span> keep their permits to carry. It's the same stinking double standard that really irritates me.The real issue is decreasing our insatiable demand for Arab oil. Vilification of one subset of consumers only clouds the issue and delays meaningful resolution.I'd wager that you could turn off every petro-dollar going to the Middle East and the terroism would continue... actually it would probably get worse, because then they truly wouldn't have a pot in which to pee... which, of course, would be <span style="font-style: italic">our</span> fault, hence making us a legitimate target for their purposes. That part of the world has been doing the same thing since recorded time. If it's not oil money, it'll be drug money, or pirated money or donations to 'charity' or corrupt governments.JMC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Harwood Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 OK, I'll dip my toe in the chilly waters we have here. I just have a few comments.First, Americans pay the market rate for oil. There are some taxes, but not as much as in most of the other countries in the Western world. I would not object to paying more for a gallon of gas if the money were appropriated in a way that helped the people who paid for it (i.e. road repairs, improving driver education, etc.). Basically a "use tax" that would make the biggest consumers, and therefore the biggest users, the ones who pay the most taxes. It would probably also encourage a shift in automotive purchases.Second, the conspiracy theory that the oil companies and the automakers are in cahoots to keep us awash in cheap oil so we keep buying big trucks is hogwash. SUVs today are no different that big Cadillacs were 30 years ago (and more). It's a sign of conspicuous consumption: "I can afford it." Nobody NEEDS a 5000 BMW truck that can't go off-road and gets stuck in the snow because of 20 inch high-performance tires. But if you can afford it, why not?I find it funny that many people scoff at the cars our parents used to drive: 5000 pound behemoths with thirsty V8s, terrible handling, marginal brakes, and not very clean. Take a look in the mirror folks: we're still driving 5000 pound behemoths with thirsty V8s, terrible handling, marginal brakes and since they're trucks instead of cars, the emissions standards to which they are held are not as strict. Who says we don't become our parents?Unfortunatley, the only way to encourage Americans to change their habits is to hit them in the wallet. As a group, we're pretty selfish with a myopic view of the world. I haven't seen the collapse of Europe in the face of $5.00/gallon gas, nor have the automakers over there been suffering. We've just gotten accustomed to a certain way of life that is increasingly conspicuous in the world. It might be the reason many of these people hate us, I don't know.In closing, I thought I'd share something that a co-worker of mine said on a visit from his home in Germany: "If I lived in the US, I'd buy the biggest truck I could find and drive it 500 miles every day because such a luxury is unimaginable in Europe. It would be like living like a king!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Sealock Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Well, I have been thinking about my role in terrorist activities (as an SUV owner), and I just realized that there are also numerous other tragedies that I have apparently caused. I really need to apologize and get these off of my conscience so that I can sleep tonight!1)Killing Disco2)Breaking up the Beetles3)Poor NFL playoff officiating4)The movies Meatballs 2, as well as A Very Brady Sequel5)Regis and Kathy Lee parting ways6)Johnny Carson's 2nd marriage7)Elizabeth Taylor's 1st and 3rd marriages8)The death of the typewriter9)The Cubs failing to win a World Series in decades10)Gilligan and the skipper getting stuck on that damn island in the first place!Well, I better hurry and get going. I am obviously too late for a pardon from outgoing Illinois Governor Ryan, but maybe I can get one of our local priests to hear a quick confession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Teamsterdug Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Greg,All are excusable blunders aside from #9. I've always wondered who was at fault there. By the way, love them '53 Specials. Used to have one. Say, anyone out there seen a Buick DF around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 This thread has been facinating to read from a distance [Canada]. I am amazed at how defensive the replies have been with regard to what Dave has written. Speaking as a citizen of a country that uses more fossil fuels per capita than even you folks [i believe], is it not more than completely obvious that any country [i.e. the U.S.] that relies on imported oil is at a tremendous disadvantage and risk? Therefore wouldn't the obvious answer be to reduce the element of risk by reducing this dependence by increasing fuel economy and trying to discourage people from using gas guzzlers as their everyday vehicle? Or is this too simple an equation? It must be because I seem to recall that your legislators defeated an attempt to increase automotive fuel economy by a minimal amount and your federal government is suing California because of some improvements it wants in new car fuel/emission technology. Great discussion folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Sealock Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I think my problem with what Dave has had to say is that he apparently does not want to hear anyone else'e opinion but his own. Dave raised some excellent points. However, every time that I started to see things from his angle, he would then conclude with words such as all SUV's being "strap on ego enhancers". I realize that as an owner, out of necessity, I have my point of view. I realize that with Dave's environmental background he has his points of view. I realize that we all need to find ways to conserve our resources. I realize that we could rely less on foreign oil if we improved fuel economy. I am all for that. But until that happens, it is not practical for my family at it's current size, our geographic region, and distances that we are required to travel, to drive anything less than the Suburban. And for your average runs around town when less than the entire family needs to go along, no the Suburban stays parked, and we drive opur economical 4 door car. I do not want to pay to fill up the tank for small errands, and it is a pain in the rear to park in most parking lots.Just remeber any time you use the word "all" to describe anyone, any group, or anything, without consideration of individual circumstance, people will get defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 O.K., from the top:John, in response to: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What's next? Heating fuel oil? How about LNG used in power production? </div></div> Probably, also the unbelievable quantities of waste plastic materials this country produces (I'll bet I'm the only one on the forum that saves his plastic grocery bags for recycling at collection centers, filled my Ford Ranger in the course of a year!). <span style="font-weight: bold">Heating oil:</span> In San D. it's probably a moot point right now, but here in the heartland I'm typing this wearing a sweater. Anybody out there reading in their underwear just as comfy as a clam right now? <span style="font-weight: bold">Power production:</span> Every light bulb in my house is a compact fluorescent. My electric bills are 1/3 those of the former occupant of this house, with two more residents living here with me than they had. And hiding behind the gun argument is more ludicrous than blaming <span style="font-style: italic">all</span> of terrorism on SUV's. There is no hypocricy in simple math and the exchange of funds to terrorists. It just exists.Greg, in response to: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I think my problem with what Dave has had to say is that he apparently does not want to hear anyone else'e opinion but his own. </div></div> Remember this one: "<span style="font-style: italic">There are many legitmate uses for SUV's. They existed for 30 years before they became status symbols among the Nautica set. I used one daily as an environmental inspector for many years. The idea that they're deliberately used to undercut democracy isn't anyone's point that I know of.</span>" How about this one: "<span style="font-style: italic">....in other words, of course there are people out there who need a large four wheel drive vehicle. Twenty-five years ago it was about 2-3% of the market. Today it's pushing 35%, and families are generally getting smaller.</span>" Here's one from the V8 Buick forum for ya': "<span style="font-style: italic">SUV's have a purpose. I used to use them 5 miles from the nearest paved road making environmental inspections for the the State of PA.</span>" Now I could go about mentioning the available mini-vans that seat 7 (one less than the Suburban, admittedly), have equal or superior cargo room and nearly equal GVW capacity, including the four wheel drive Mopars, and beat the Suburban in gas milage by at least five and sometimes ten miles per gallon; but instead I'll just say this: Your post reads: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I realize that we could rely less on foreign oil if we improved fuel economy. I am all for that. But until that happens, it is not practical for my family .... </div></div> Your presumption that I don't see the need for anyone to own an SUV isn't supported by my posts, as you can see above. This presumption is even further out on a limb. <span style="font-weight: bold">Energy conservation doesn't "happen", never has and never will.</span> Until an individual takes it on as their own initiative, it <span style="font-style: italic">NEVER</span> "happens". Passivity is an evil. Avoid it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 The theory makes sense but the math doesn't. True, using oil funds terrorism, no-one can argue that. Also true SUV's use more gas than smaller cars. But the extra amount of oil required to support this increase is infinitesimal compared to the overall consumption.Of the oil consumed only a percentage is used by consumers. Of that percentage a fraction is refined into gasoline. SUV's use more gas than smaller cars, but they can only be blamed for the increase over average. We are discussing a percent of a percent of a percent. If we want to have a genuine impact on oil consumption we need to talk about the big users. Out of all of the oil consumed, I'm supposed to beleive SUV owners are the "real" problem? The oil consumption issue is real, SUV's part in the story is misderiction of epic proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Once again, it has been widely reported for more than a year now the improving the average fuel economy of the fleet of vehicles using the roads in America (It's still not clear to me if semi-trucks are involved in this calculation or not, but no matter) by only <span style="font-weight: bold">three miles per gallon</span> would eliminate the need for importing <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> middle-eastern oil to the U.S. Obviously driving a 15 mpg vehicle instead of a 25 mpg vehicle impacts that scenario. If you burn twice as much gas, your sending twice as much money to Yemen, percentage of a percentage or not. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Sealock Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Dave,Once again you have failed to listen to my problem with your posts. The particular quotes that you listed in your second to last post are the ones that I agreed with. But all of a sudden you seem to have forgotten what upset me. You now claim that there are legitamate uses, yet you closed a particular post saying that it was only as a "strap on ego enhancer". And there is not a minivan on the market, I have looked, that can compare in people or cargo space.If I could locate Rick Moranis and shrink my kids each time I was going on a trip, I would gladly buy a cheaper, more economical vehicle. I think Dave and I are just going in circles now, and the rest of you are probably getting tired of it. If he and I were talking face to face, we would probably both realize that we are pretty close to being in agreement on mostof this. I probably got a little personal, and I apologize. I am going to stay off of this subject for awhile, and let some others get your opinions in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Dave,You misunderstand... I'm not attempting to hide behind any issue. I selected the long-standing gun control issue to illustrate the deliberate vilification of a set of people using specious arguments to advance a wrong minded agenda.Perhaps a better example would be the Kyoto Accord for an example of wrong-minded good intentions to push an agenda that is emotionally appealing, yet fails to make economic sense. In short, by best estimates the world-wide economic cost would be $5 <span style="font-style: italic">trillion</span> to achieve a delay of only <span style="font-style: italic">six</span> years in global temperature increase. Like the cows I mentioned in an earlier post, this is 'bad milage'... and apparently many others saw it the same way, because only Rumania had ratified the agreement the last time I looked. Kind of an interesting study on putting your actions ahead of your words.My points... again, are first, that we must reduce or eliminate our dependence on imported oil. The fastest way to do that is to charge the true <span style="font-style: italic">economic</span> cost of imported oil. By economic cost, I include all the costs associated with ensuring the avialability of the oil (defense cost in the main) addded to the cost of the oil itself (product, transportation and refinement). Second, the terrorists will get funding one way or the other, so before I will join the 'What would Jesus Drive?' campaign, I'd like to see hard evidence that supports the SUV-Terroism link.To jump to willie nilly, ill-concieved actions as some have done in response to this issue is wrong.By the way... I think the answer to the question is a pearl white, stretch Excursion with seating (on leather) for 13.JMC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Reatta1 Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 The rhetoric about SUV's burning more fuel and contributing to terrorism is pure GARBAGE! Anyone who tries to tell you that because we depend on oil to drive our vehicles around is missing one HUGE fact. The Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force consume more petroleum products in one minute than you or I will ever in our wildest dreams use in a lifetime. It's all propaganda no matter what your political persuasion. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smartin Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Everyone is correct in some way or another here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 31tudor Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Dave@Moon...I've really enjoyed reading the posts you've made, until this thread. I beleive everyone on this thread sees your point of view and will respect your opinion as long as it's not forced upon them. The radical manner in which you've chosen to express yourself here has told me an awful lot about you.With 1700 plus posts to my measly 30 or so posts, this may not hold much weight here. Down, boy. Restrain yourself. You're attempting to tear down the very foundation of what exists here... the love of the automobile whether it be a classic with a gas guzzling V8, a new SUV, or your "economical" daily drivers. I, for one, am in no hurry to park my '62 Invicta with a thirsty 401 based on your comments, nor will I buy two Honda electric cars and make my wagon a two-electric-motor beast, simply to preserve the car or to make you happy.You stated you "collect" classic cars. Good for you. I "drive" classic cars. Good for me. You will not convince me that you are a better American than I because my 11 MPG wagon contributes twice as much money to the terrorist foundations than your 22 MPG pickup. Go hug your tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Yep, my comment here has nothing to do with the topic. I am, however, intrigued by 31tudor's '62 Invicta wagon photo. How about a separate topic to tell us about your car, along with some larger photos so we can enjoy it? These cars are seldom seen -- and I love 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Moskowitz Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Always have found your posts interested buy this one is offensive to all of us. To make the arcane deduction that if we drive an SUV we have had a hand in anything to do with 9/11 is just ludicrous and insulting.Recently a Ford Dealer was burnt down by a group calling themselves Earth Liberation Front and another dealership in Va. had 30 vehicles vandalized apparently for selling SUV's. This kind of reaction and rhetoric is outrageous.I have not found a way to tow my trailer with a 4-cylinder car so I do have a Suburban. I also was a dealer for 30 years, paid my fair share of taxes and contributed, like most Americans to a wide variety of charities. Lumping me or others in such a blanket statement is extremist to the hilt and uncalled for!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Brink Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Dear All,Such passions!Just a few random thoughts...1. What are we saving oil for? Why not use it?2. Anybody think we will cease to exist because the oil runs out? I don't.3. Anybody think technology will come up with something to replace oil used to heat, propel cars (trucks, planes, etc.....)? I do.4. Anybody think that if technology does not keep pace so that we transition to the use of other consumables that we don't adapt to the "turning back the clock" lifestyle just fine?5. I am skeptical of most things but do have faith that when the cost of oil becomes high enough business will find something to replace it with. My main concern will then be how to drive whatever old car/truck I have without gasoline.6. We should (indeed) be environmentally responsible enough to continue to improve our environment. I have no doubt that we will do so overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Chapman Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Reatta1.... You're right! Aircraft carriers get lousy mileage! And, I've surely dumped more JP5 to achieve landing weight than I'll ever burn in equivalent gasoline gallons.Cheers,JMC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gungeey Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 What about a Honda CRV that gets 24 MPG? Isn't that an SUV? SUV's Supporting Terrorism!!What about the Grand Marquis Owners!So many choices, who to pick on and finger point and try to blame! TYPICAL liberal, socialist mentality. Guess what...that miniscule persentage of money I am forced to give through my Gov't may be an miniscule amount of our Countries gross, but it's still MORE , BY FAR, than anybody else gives.And even if it weren't, that would be all the better as far as I'm concerned.I'm not busting my ass working nights so I can chip in to make some foreign country a better place to live. If you like to, be my friggin' guest. Stuff your whole paycheck in an envelope and send it off to Istanbul. As far as your comment about no support for mid east countries, I beg to differ...how about ISRAEL? Or don't they count 'cause to you and others with a "Blame America First" mentality, they're the bad guys, too?...You don't want to use gas, then DON"T! Ride a friggin' bike, for all I care. The solution is not to stop using gas, the solution is to KILL THE TERRORISTS and KILL THEIR FAMILIES. Sorry to remind your bleeding heart,but as you know, this is in it's advanced stages as I type. Some types of people think if we appease the terrorists...mass transit,high energy taxes tacked onto our fuels,send 747's full of food and money, maybe we'll not be the focus of terrorisms attention. Other peple, like myself, believe we have an inate human right to live as we deem fit, and that The President of the United States is OBLIGED to protect that Right. Gas guzzlers and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 O.K., here it goes:In response to these series of quotes: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I've really enjoyed reading the posts you've made, until this thread. </div></div> You are conversing with a professional in the field. How many like what their dentist says about tooth decay? How many enjoy hearing from their tax consultant this time of year? Are you just dying to hear from your oncologist right about now? It's a tough world when your dealing with hard facts, numbers, and materials. They don't give PhD's and MS's (I've got 2, by the way) in <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">opinions!</span></span> Everybody's got their share of those, most self-serving in some way. Does anybody out there really think there is a plus side to reiterating these realities for the professional environmentalists? It's not like we're keeping all of the Lincoln Navigators to ourselves. More to come: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 As for: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Perhaps a better example would be the Kyoto Accord for an example of wrong-minded good intentions to push an agenda that is emotionally appealing, yet fails to make economic sense....... and apparently many others saw it the same way, because only Rumania had ratified the agreement the last time I looked. Kind of an interesting study on putting your actions ahead of your words. </div></div> First of all, if 75% of the banquet gets up and leaves without paying the check, are you going to stick around to pick it up? As we go on environmental issues, so goes everyone else (in one form or other to their abilities). Since we've shirked our responsibilities (as defined by 3000 PhD's, by the way), nobody's going to bother ratifying that lost dream.As for the inadequacies of the remediation protocols in the Kyoto Accord, please feel free to suggest your own to Mr. Bush in written form. I'm <span style="font-style: italic">sure</span> his buddies from back home would be glad to help you see them implemented.In the mean time, keep this in mind. When you're about to hit a tree, most of us still think it's wise to hit the brakes. Six years, based on the real dangers of global warming (worldwide unstable climate resulting in major agricultural failures), could very well have bought millions lives that'll now be lost before atmospheric stability is achieved.But then again, what's that compared to comforting roar of 8.2 liters hauling your kid to pre-school. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Regarding: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force consume more petroleum products in one minute than you or I will ever in our wildest dreams use in a lifetime. It's all propaganda no matter what your political persuasion. </div></div> To say nothing of United Airlines, Chinese steel mills and the nation of Russia! (Bloody Ruskies, I knew it was their fault!) At what point <span style="font-style: italic">does</span> personal responsibility take over in one's life, if ever? My contributions to remediating these problems are pathetic, but it is absolutely vital that I make them (now where have I heard <span style="font-weight: bold">that</span> before?) <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />If you don't do your share, don't expect sympathy from the rest of us. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now