Advocacy & Safety - Anti-SUV ad campaign

News story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030109/od_nm/politics_suv_dc_1)

Hmmm ... the SUV owner's name is George. Why don't they just call him GW? :D

The whole add campaign is pure satire. It's a parody of the government's "buy drugs, support terrorism" adds:

More Clicky (http://www.lindesmith.org/news/11_14_02suv.cfm)

The difference between the two adds is that @ least the SUV argument has some merit.

:thumbup: Good job steele-bike in finding this story.I like it.

Looks an AWFUL lot like my "ad' I posted here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18359&highlight=Still+smiling+dave)

Originally posted by Raiyn
Looks an AWFUL lot like my "ad' I posted here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18359&highlight=Still+smiling+dave)

Holy cow - it looks very similar!!!! :)

The SUV ad has more merit than the drug ad?? Give me a break!

So what you are saying is that driving an SUV is more or should be more of a criminal act than buying drugs, i.e. cocaine?

You should be a politician with that sort of thinking.

Originally posted by TLN
The SUV ad has more merit than the drug ad?? Give me a break!

So what you are saying is that driving an SUV is more or should be more of a criminal act than buying drugs, i.e. cocaine?

You should be a politician with that sort of thinking. Did anyone say that? Cocaine is bad. Oil (when used wastefully) is bad as well.

Originally posted by TLN
The SUV ad has more merit than the drug ad?? Give me a break!

So what you are saying is that driving an SUV is more or should be more of a criminal act than buying drugs, i.e. cocaine?

You should be a politician with that sort of thinking.

No - that's not what I stated. Let me try again. I'm attempting to show that our country's gluttonous appetite for crude oil has a MUCH more detrimental affect on our war on terrorism than buying drugs does.

PS: If I were a politician, I would tell you that if you do drugs, you're supporting communism ... oh no that was years ago ... I mean you're supporting terrorism. Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket! :D

"No - that's not what I stated. Let me try again. I'm attempting to show that our country's gluttonous appetite for crude oil has a MUCH more detrimental affect on our war on terrorism than buying drugs does."

Ill majorly agree on that.
But reading that article as a whole there are only a couple of SUVs that have a 13 mpg give or take. Most of them get as good mpg as most small trucks due to lack of sales in previous years.

The reasoning "I sit up higher" in an SUV than a car, does have merit. Most people I know that own SUVs commute on interstates an have a legitimate excuse to own one....safety.

But I rather commute on my bike, which I do.

Arianna Huffington is a big pain in the a** :mad:


If the ad campaign was a parody, the networks would have carried them, but their not... The libel in cases such as these is huge... and reflects AH's segued thinking. She's become a bozo in Orange Cty.

Originally posted by Garbear
The libel in cases such as these is huge... and reflects AH's segued thinking.

I don't follow. Whom is the ad libeling? And what's segued thinking?

The beauty of these ads, imho, is that they send up the hypocrisy of the Administration's War On Drug ads by simply placing "drugs" with "SUV." And if they piss off the Escalade-driving-down-to-the-Starbucks crowd, that's just gravy.

"the biggest weapon of mass destruction is sitting in your driveway" i like that ! & it applies to all of us , not just to you good people in the USA !

Originally posted by Garbear
Arianna Huffington is a big pain in the a** :mad:


The libel in cases such as these is huge... and reflects AH's segued thinking. She's become a bozo in Orange Cty. So tell us what you really think. Also what are the legal boundaries of slander?

Originally posted by caloso


I don't follow. Whom is the ad libeling? And what's segued thinking?

The beauty of these ads, imho, is that they send up the hypocrisy of the Administration's War On Drug ads by simply placing "drugs" with "SUV." And if they piss off the Escalade-driving-down-to-the-Starbucks crowd, that's just gravy.

Read the ad and "ponder" oh bright one how to win friends and influence your own enema via print media. Being I own an Escalade and don't visit Starbucks because I have my own super auto espresso maker ... I've elected not to further titillate you with pragmatic concepts that reach above and beyond the simplistic agenda of pissing people off for the fun of it... :mad:

Those ads are not meant tongue-in-cheek. They are serious about it and that's the sad part.
SUV's support terrorism because they get poor gas mileage. What about the sports cars that get equally poor mileage or luxury cars that get poor mileage, both being less practical than an SUV.

Buying 5 more gallons of gas makes someone evil? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If SUV drivers are supporting terrorism, WE ALL are supporting terrorism. Whoever buys one gallon of gas is supporting terrorism.

It is a stupid concept for a commercial devised by stupid people to bring attention to themselves. It is ignorant and does nothing but piss people off. It doesn't rally people to save gas, it just feeds the pro/anti-suv arguments.

And how about those electric cars? Has anyone really looked into the environmental hazards of one vehicle carrying 50x more toxic, unrecyclable batteries that must be disposed of by 30,000 miles and fully replaced? Hybrids are oil dependent so I guess that is supporting terrorism too. By the way, don't heat your home and we better shut down powerplants and refineries because they are all supporting terrorism.

The fact is that we are a global marketplace and the world is dependent on oil.

Originally posted by Garbear


Read the ad and "ponder" oh bright one how to win friends and influence your own enema via print media.

You didn't answer my question. Whom does the ad libel? I've watched the ads (see http://www.detroitproject.com/ads/default.htm) and it doesn't refer to any specific person, just a group of SUV owners. I don't think you really mean libel in a legal sense, but that it's a harsh parody that might hurt the feelings of some folks. Also, it's a TV campaign, not print media.


Being I own an Escalade and don't visit Starbucks because I have my own super auto espresso maker ... I've elected not to further titillate you with pragmatic concepts that reach above and beyond the simplistic agenda of pissing people off for the fun of it... :mad:

I didn't see any pragmatic concepts in your post. Nor was I titilated. If you read my comment, I said that the genius of the ad was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Bush administration's WOD ads by parodying them. The pissing off of people, as I said, was an added benefit.

Finally, I guess it's your prerogative to drop alot of harsh comments in a thread and then decide to check out when called on it.

Originally posted by TLN
The reasoning "I sit up higher" in an SUV than a car, does have merit. Most people I know that own SUVs commute on interstates an have a legitimate excuse to own one....safety.


If your definition of "safety" is "let's get into big tanks to go out and collect the mail" then I guess that is the case. Personally I'd like to see some statistics which indicates that SUV's are any safer than any other cars on the road. I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case.


Originally posted by RacerX
The fact is that we are a global marketplace and the world is dependent on oil.

The fact is that oil money is the main source of funding for terrorism globally. The other fact is that oil is a finite resource that simply won't last forever regardless of who sells it. Ergo, there will eventually be a post-oil economy (the same as there was a pre-oil economy) and the sooner that transition begins the easier it will be.

In any case, nobody has ever given me a satisfactory explanation of why oil consumption (or consumption of anything else for that matter) has to be one extreme or the other. There are perfectly legitimate ways of significantly reducing oil consumption (such as encouraging more efficient vehicles) without cutting it out altogether.

"If your definition of "safety" is "let's get into big tanks to go out and collect the mail" then I guess that is the case. Personally I'd like to see some statistics which indicates that SUV's are any safer than any other cars on the road. I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case."

No, my difinition of safety is a technical one. What Im talking about is rush hour traffic on the interstate. There have been so many accidents where you have people not paying attention to their driving and having accidents, like slamming into someone who is almost or completely at a stop. Technically its safer to be up higher, unless getting hit by a semi, then it would be at a lower height.

I dont know what kind of boneheads you know who drive around in "big tanks" to get the mail, but the bonehead that I know who own SUVs use them to commute to work... and the commute is more than 20 miles.

The one thing I would like to know is why the same people who bash SUVs never really have anything to say about trucks or semi trucks? Talk about wasting fuel... oh yeah, thats right... they transport goods. That must be the point.... but then there are freight trains right?

... heres something else to consider...

http://www.wwj.com/ease-zine/stories/10a1002.html

Sure there are freight trains and they do transport a lot of goods, however a train is stuck on a track and can only deliver to certain depots. This is where the goods are put on trucks to be transported to their final destination. The reality is, trucks are needed to get the products into the cities and suburbs, and most country areas that aren't serviced by rail.

CHEERS.

Mark

So 7 billion gallons of fuel would be saved per year, that's hardly a small amount of oil.

1,842,105,263 litres of fuel per year is enough to run 885,627 cars for a year using 40 litres of fuel per week each.

So what point is John McElroy trying to make?

CHEERS.

Mark

Originally posted by TLN
I dont know what kind of boneheads you know who drive around in "big tanks" to get the mail, but the bonehead that I know who own SUVs use them to commute to work... and the commute is more than 20 miles.
So I'm supposed to be in awe of this somehow? There are a bunch of people here who bike to work and their commute is over 20 miles. I'm supposed to feel all shiny and happy because some couch-potato exec drives an SUV because he has over 20 miles to go to work? Move closer to work! Get a more efficent vehicle! Carpool! These single occupant vehicles (more specifically single occupant SUV's) burn more fuel for no better reason than to haul some lazy status-seeking schlub to his office. At least with the trucks they're generally hauling a USEFUL product. ....over 20 miles cry me a river.

Here's the script for the other ad on the detriotproject site

"I helped hijack an airplane. I helped blow up a nightclub. So what if it gets 11 miles to the gallon. I gave money to a terrorist training camp in a foreign country. It makes me feel safe. I helped our enemies develop weapons of mass destruction. What if I need to go off-road? Everyone has one. I helped teach kids around the world to hate America. I like to sit up high. I sent our soldiers off to war. Everyone has one. My life, my SUV. I don't even know how many miles it gets to the gallon."

WHAT IS YOUR SUV DOING TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY?
DETROIT, AMERICA NEEDS HYBRID CARS NOW.

Fact: you buy gas you are giving money to foreign oil interests many of these Arab.

Fact the Al queda gets there funding from oil interests, much more than from the lowly pot dealer (like the ads portray)

Fact every time you fill up you gas guzzling vehicles you are contributing to terrorists

Now if we all would lobby our politicians and vote for someone who is not in the pockets of the oil cartels we maybe able to come up with some other alternative fuel source and then we are not dependent on foreign interests (Hmm conservative I wonder where the word is derived from?) for our day to day livelihood

Yes this is a complex situation and it may mean jobs in jeopardy but isn't that all part of progress I mean what ever happened to the rag man, ice man, blacksmith, basket weaver, etc etc etc. And like progress different jobs will be created.

SUV safer? you guys need to stop sucking on exhaust fumes. They are not safer there is much more of a chance of a roll over because of the high center of gravity. More often than not when I am traveling through or mountain regions here in adverse weather it is the SUV, thinking that they can get anywhere in their vehicle because it is 4 wheel drive that they go zipping down the freeway or roadway in snow or heavy rain at unsafe speeds. And they are also the vehicles you will see most in a ditch or nasty accident because though they can move through adverse weather, they cannot stop. And it is my tax dollars that get wasted during the aftermath of all this.

Originally posted by TLN
I dont know what kind of boneheads you know who drive around in "big tanks" to get the mail, but the bonehead that I know who own SUVs use them to commute to work... and the commute is more than 20 miles.

Well, we all face choices about where we live. And I still see no reason that any other car couldn't be used for such a commute. As I said before, if they are any safer (and safer for whom might I ask?) there must be some statistics around on this, right? I suspect that in the real world they are no safer than any other car on the road, it's just the old small penis syndrome and trying to compensate in other areas.

However, what really bugs me is all the fuel subsidies that these people get for their habits. If people really want to be irrationally wasteful it's their decision, but I don't see why the rest of us should be forced to subsidise them (especially when most of the same people think government interference in any other facet of life is akin to an act of terrorism).

There are 200 million cars in the United States. If the owners of these cars would park their cars occasionally and ride a bike 500 miles a year for commuting and running erands, etc., that equates to 5 billion gallons of gasoline saved each year, eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. (Then we wouldn't have to go to war with Iraq.) :p

What I found so humurous about the original drug ad, is that I hardly believe that smoking a joint can be considered supporting terrorist. Perhaps, a marijuana or cocaine user is supporting Central American drug cartels, but hardly Middle Eastern terrorist. So, unless one is using heroin or opium there is little connection to drug use and terrorism.

But, regardless of the reasons one may drive, some percentage of the fuel dollars do go to the Middle East. So, whether or not such money is directly supporting terrorism can be argued, but oil certainly has more of a connection to the region than drugs do.

Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead! Let's drive around in gas hogs waving Chinese made United States flags!
We have the right to be the largest consumers of the world's resources. We're capitalists and it's the American way!

Raiyn,
Dude you need to settle down or youll give yourself a stroke.
My point is, and maybe I should have made myself clearer is, regardless whether I think that owning a SUV is right or wrong.. I think its complete hipocrisy that some people and I am using the word SOME will drive trucks around, and not for hauling, but for the same reason some people drive SUVs around and still cry about ..."oooooooooh look at those bad people theyre wasting so much gas... those things should be outlawed...boo hoo hoo".
Its complete crap man. I believe that we all should try to use as little oil related products as we can... hell thats why I bike to work, and its a pretty long ride. I am not complaining because its going to help me break my 6000 mile mark this year.

But I think unless some of these people who bash other people, and I see some everyday, need to stop being hypocrites and join in the cause...... thats my point.

Originally posted by Steele-Bike
What I found so humurous about the original drug ad, is that I hardly believe that smoking a joint can be considered supporting terrorist.

Right - when is our government (this time prodded by the prescription drug industry, and the religious right) going to learn that you can't blatantly lie to the American people, and not expect @ least someone to call them on it. Well, perhaps I'm wrong there - politicians have been doing this for years. However, this sort of thing generally doesn't work on educated individuals.

Anywho, I saw another one of these government sponsored anti-drug "commercials" last evening. This piece of propaganda shows two youths smoking pot, and then one youth accidentally shoots the other. Come on now! How many shooting deaths does smoking pot cause???? Alcohol, however, is a major factor in gun deaths, but you’ll never see that commercial coming out of Washington. Why? Obviously, it’s not about accidental gun deaths, or terrorism.

I guess if we continue to allow our politicians to take bribes (I’m sorry – they call it soft money, and special interest groups) from entities with obvious political agendas, this sort of stuff is going to continue forever. This new emphasis on the “war on drugs” has nothing to do with accidental shootings or terrorism. However, it has everything to do with satisfying the people who paid for George Jr’s election. That is, unfortunately, the bottom-line.

Originally posted by Raiyn
So I'm supposed to be in awe of this somehow? There are a bunch of people here who bike to work and their commute is over 20 miles. I'm supposed to feel all shiny and happy because some couch-potato exec drives an SUV because he has over 20 miles to go to work? Move closer to work! Get a more efficent vehicle! Carpool! These single occupant vehicles (more specifically single occupant SUV's) burn more fuel for no better reason than to haul some lazy status-seeking schlub to his office. At least with the trucks they're generally hauling a USEFUL product. ....over 20 miles cry me a river.

It appears you hate executives... of which I am. You must work in a real high profile, fast, demanding career position from 9-5 right.

So, let's draw the line... Oil is about transportation and degrees of luxury. I have spent my life building a company, creating jobs then offering careers to a diverse base of employees. To conduct business we're required to visit and entertain clients in the field... Kids Toyota trunks, Honda Accords and EV's don't cut it when taking executives out for lunch...to close a million dollar deal...which supports the employ of hundreds of staff. Ever notice in your European travels that MBZ's are taxi's everywhere else...

Our offices are located in the middle of various cities for convenience. Carpooling is great if one works from 8-5... But, who gets promoted doing that, nobody I know. Most people commute in from all direction because housing costs near the financial districts is high and very limited, with even worse school options, forcing most to live 20-60miles from their offices and drive in by 6-8am, leave for home @5-7pm... Yeah, brilliant one, biking works... I live 65miles!!!from my company... I could move the office to convenience me and layoff all those that don't like my selfish move...but, then again, I have greater consideration for others. To add to the problem, many that are socially conscious spend substantial amounts of time during and after work volunteering in various community service organizations and have child duties... Let's see, I know you'd ride your bike, right! Your out in the inner-city, biking around delivering food, picking up families and taking your child to ballet, etc...

So, oh wise enlightened, frugal community leader bike commuter.... I'd like to know what exactly you do for our great country, besides ride your bike to work, that I am not when I drive my Escalade (16mpg) or electric cart???? Let's see, just how many jobs have you created, how many bonuses did you hand out this past Xmas. Just how many company autos have you paid for, how many families have you supported and just how much of your personal biking time is spent volunteering after your demanding job? How many struggling families are you trying to help?? besides your idealistic dreamer self???

I'd say your environmentally friendly bike is hauling community waste... :mad:

It's just advocacy by a group who has a particular point of view and managed to put together an ad and raised enough money to buy some air time. Anybody can do that. It's still a (relatively) free country.

The Detroit Project is free to point out that SUVs use a lot more gas than other kinds of cars and a certain percentage of that gas comes from regimes that support terrorism. A recent Sacramento Bee story said that something like 8% of every gallon of gas sold in California comes from Iraq. Since I doubt that Saddam gives it away for free, we can assume that some of that money might be used to, what?, buy plutonium? hire nuke engineers? install more SAMs to shoot at USAF F-16s patrolling the No Fly Zone?

And I admit to owning a car. My hands aren't totally clean. I just try not to waste so much of the stuff that powers it. Why? I don't know. Maybe just because it's rude to use more of something than you need.

After a brief search on the internet regarding the thought that SUV's are safer because you "ride higher":
"SUVs are heavier and ride higher than regular cars. The high ride contributes to a propensity of SUVs to roll over in accidents. According to NHTSA, SUVs rollover in 37 percent of fatal crashes, compared to a 15 percent rollover rate for passenger cars."

Also, driving an SUV is such an egotistical act.
"In March 1999 NHTSA examined the design of many popular SUVs and found that the height and frames of SUVs make them extra lethal to people riding in smaller vehicles."

Whatever happened to people doing something for the good of society? We are all about 'me, me, me' and have completely forgetten about making choices that are good for the whole. Driving an SUV may be safer when not involved in roll-over accidents, but you just killed your neighbor/brother/sister or a stranger because your SUV plowed into their passenger car.

And about parading other corporate moguls around in an Escalade, there are plenty of luxury passenger cars out there that would impress.

Why should my tax money go to finance the building of the automobile roads and the fuel subsidies?

What if one can select the target of one's tax money? For example, when I fill out a tax declaration I could mark in the list what I want it to be spent on. It should be possible by now from technological point of view.

I would select building bike trails and reclaiming cities from cars.

The car owners should finance their agenda themselves - like - cheap gas, building ever wider roads, rectifying environment damage, etc. by the tax directly levied on the fuel.

When they pay all the expences themselves - let them choose a car, which they want. But they must pay for everything themselves.

It would be right and fair. Let them drive then whatever SUV they want. I would like to see it. It would put everything in its proper place.

Originally posted by neguypdx

Also, driving an SUV is such an egotistical act.
"In March 1999 NHTSA examined the design of many popular SUVs and found that the height and frames of SUVs make them extra lethal to people riding in smaller vehicles."

Whatever happened to people doing something for the good of society? We are all about 'me, me, me' and have completely forgetten about making choices that are good for the whole. Driving an SUV may be safer when not involved in roll-over accidents, but you just killed your neighbor/brother/sister or a stranger because your SUV plowed into their passenger car.

YEAH RIGHT!!!!! :mad:
I am glad you included yourself. Now, tell us what your reason is that you don't do more for society? A friend of mine that had sacrificed all his life for his staff and his troubled adolescence assistance home, was driving home in his new "50th birthday reward" a porsche and was plowed into head-on by some 20something drunk twit, driving a little Toyota pickup...no doubt he thought by driving his toyota, he was doing something good for society... My guess is, he couldn't afford more! If my buddy had been driving any SUV, he wouldn't be brain damaged and struggling today... The 20something idiot would be! Iam ok with that :mad:



And about parading other corporate moguls around in an Escalade, there are plenty of luxury passenger cars out there that would impress.

Where do you all come up with your information... the actual mileage on a MBZ, Infinity, Lexus and Cadillac's "almost" equals my SUV... and I've owned 3 of the forementioned. Oh, are we all suppose to have values like you????

the actual mileage on a MBZ, Infinity, Lexus and Cadillac's "almost" equals my SUV

But there is a difference in miles per gallon. Just a one or two mpg savings is quite a bit. To you just that small difference isn't much, but average that over the entire fleet of cars in the US and it is millions of gallons saved.

Plus, you get the added benefit of knowing that the passenger car you drive is safer in roll over accidents and if you do happen to run a red light (no, you wouldn't do that) and plow into someone, you are less likely to kill them.

I basically put this in another thread but I'll stick it here too.
Why do SUV's always come up? The SUV thing is just so old in this forum. Please, there are other vehicles that get far worse mileage that you can gripe about. How about private planes/jets? Ooh, very fuel efficient, especially when carrying only a few people. Most sports cars, 4x4 pickups, 2 stroke snowmobiles, many jet ski's & boats (big & small get) get equal or worse mileage. That list could go on & on. If you don't have a large vehicle .. hooray for you. If you don't have any vehicle .. hooray for you. If you don't want one, don't buy one. If I want one and can afford one, it's my choice.

Originally posted by Max
Why should my tax money go to finance the building of the automobile roads and the fuel subsidies?

Should my large tax bill go to support you??? Roads are part of infrastructure... no individual category can be responsible. That like saying the liver has nothing to do with the heart.



What if one can select the target of one's tax money? For example, when I fill out a tax declaration I could mark in the list what I want it to be spent on. It should be possible by now from technological point of view.

I would select building bike trails and reclaiming cities from cars.

The car owners should finance their agenda themselves - like - cheap gas, building ever wider roads, rectifying environment damage, etc. by the tax directly levied on the fuel.

Sounds good to me... course, I would be financially able to support many transportation options, allowing me to use all and bike for joy. :)

You on the other hand, would only be able to bike! :p

The high income earners pay the lions share in taxes, period! They also create the jobs! Make capital investments. Fund the banks so loans are avialabe to guys like you to buy a home, lease an auto you can't afford to buy ourright, and finance those that have an idea to build bike frames or start their own biz, etc. Yet, it's "Joe and Jane Doe" that are found in the average leased auto creating traffic jams and over populating our social progams out of lazy need.



When they pay all the expences themselves - let them choose a car, which they want. But they must pay for everything themselves.

You and others can quit your jobs. Consequently, the one's that created the jobs would have to close the company, and give up their large expensive vehicles.



It would be right and fair. Let them drive then whatever SUV they want. I would like to see it. It would put everything in its proper place.

Yes, I would agree... Quit your job and start the ball rolling! :)

Originally posted by Stor Mand
I basically put this in another thread but I'll stick it here too.
Why do SUV's always come up? The SUV thing is just so old in this forum. Please, there are other vehicles that get far worse mileage that you can gripe about. How about private planes/jets? Ooh, very fuel efficient, especially when carrying only a few people. Most sports cars, 4x4 pickups, 2 stroke snowmobiles, many jet ski's & boats (big & small get) get equal or worse mileage. That list could go on & on. If you don't have a large vehicle .. hooray for you. If you don't have any vehicle .. hooray for you. If you don't want one, don't buy one. If I want one and can afford one, it's my choice.

ME TOO................ :D

Originally posted by Garbear
To conduct business we're required to visit and entertain clients in the field... Kids Toyota trunks, Honda Accords and EV's don't cut it when taking executives out for lunch...to close a million dollar deal...which supports the employ of hundreds of staff.
What did you use before SUVs? Your reason/excuse is poor.


Originally posted by Garbear
I live 65miles!!!from my company... I could move the office to convenience me and layoff all those that don't like my selfish move...but, then again, I have greater consideration for others.
That's the most wasteful thing I've ever heard! You could also move closer to your office yourself to convenience you, but your first thought is to lay everyone else off rather than to make that 'sacrifice'. Your complaint about high housing costs close to the office is illegitimate; you're a high and mighty executive, remember?


Originally posted by Garbear
Where do you all come up with your information... the actual mileage on a MBZ, Infinity, Lexus and Cadillac's "almost" equals my SUV... and I've owned 3 of the forementioned.
It's not just the gas mileage. SUVs have very loose emissions requirements compared to cars, so they pollute the air to a much greater degree. SUVs are more dangerous to their drivers and passengers due to the rollover phenomenon, and they are more deadly to those on the receiving end of a collision with an SUV, due to the fact that SUV bumpers are at the same height as the craniums of car drivers and passengers.


Originally posted by Garbear
...no doubt he thought by driving his toyota, he was doing something good for society... My guess is, he couldn't afford more!
I don't hear you stating facts to support your argument, just lame excuses to support your extravagant, elitist lifestyle. And despite your rhetoric about helping your workers, you have displayed a not insignificant amount of contempt for those 'beneath' you. That attitude is exactly what generates anti-executive feelings among many people.

neguypdx,
I dont want to get off of the subject but your response of "driving an SUV is such an egotistical act" is very subjective. There are alot of people out there, not all but alot, that use their SUVs to carry their family to this and that, here and there. Regardless of how much gas is being used, calling them egotistical because they want a little more protection for their own family is hardly being considered egotistical. No offense, but if a situation came into play where it was either my family or someone else like you, Im sorry but my family comes first.

Second the couple of people I know that drive the SUVs know they drive like trucks. The center of gravity is a lot higher which causes them to tip, unlike the many fools who try to lower the tire pressure to make them "ride" more like cars and have them roll over.

I think the "roll over" is a non-issue here. Everyone knows they are more tippy than a car. Well everyone who has half a brain.

Originally posted by neguypdx


But there is a difference in miles per gallon. Just a one or two mpg savings is quite a bit. To you just that small difference isn't much, but average that over the entire fleet of cars in the US and it is millions of gallons saved.

Plus, you get the added benefit of knowing that the passenger car you drive is safer in roll over accidents and if you do happen to run a red light (no, you wouldn't do that) and plow into someone, you are less likely to kill them.

You missed the point... You add up all the SUV's, MBZ's and other high MPG vehicles, (not include commercial vehicles) and they won't near equal all the 4-6cyc vehicles consumption, nor miles driven. As for safety, if I am going to roll over, I'd rather be in my Escalade, then a Honda and if some 20something twit is going to get drunk and hit my wife head on, if someone's going to die, it's going to be him!

I'll make you a deal... I pay a lions share in taxes... and I am tried of it, along with most of other buddies that own companies. How about you and a few friends picking up some of the slack??? When we think you've accomplished that, I can affect changing all the autos in my companies fleet to small vehicles.

I think the "roll over" is a non-issue here. Everyone knows they are more tippy than a car. Well everyone who has half a brain.

Well, sorry to say it but there are a lot half-brainers out there. Daily I see people make idiotic driving decisions.

Have you seen the Frontline about SUV rollover incidents? I am not talking about people taking the SUV out for a jaunt to Starbucks and going around a corner too quickly. When there is quick reaction required to avoid something in the road (say small child, dead skunk or deer) and the wheel is turned quickly to avoid these, the SUV will roll. Even though you know the vehicle is more top heavy, over the vehicle goes often crushing the roof and killing the occupants. Do your own research online to find out more about this.

I am glad you included yourself. Now, tell us what your reason is that you don't do more for society?

Garbear, I'm not sure if this was directed this to me. However, it prompted me to drop $20 of my hard-earned income into the mail, addressed to:

Americans For Fuel Efficient Cars
7966 Beverly Blvd. 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90048

so that the Detroit Project can purchase more airtime for these ads.

So, by helping to pay for something that stimulates debate on a topic of national importance, THAT'S something I just did for society.

Garbear,

You say:


I pay a lions share in taxes... and I am tried of it, along with most of other buddies that own companies.

Well, let's talk about this. What is your taxable income? What is your income after taxes? Please let me know these statistics because this would enlighten me as to what you top wage earners are facing.

Originally posted by morsen

I don't hear you stating facts to support your argument, just lame excuses to support your extravagant, elitist lifestyle. And despite your rhetoric about helping your workers, you have displayed a not insignificant amount of contempt for those 'beneath' you. That attitude is exactly what generates anti-executive feelings among many people.

You're NOT worth further time.

--I make less than $20,000 a year.
--I am fortunate to own many luxuries that others would not deem a necessity.
--I usually bike to work, occasionally drive.
--I invest 30% of my income and have done so for a number of years.
--I have never taken part in any social program.

Am I a drain on society, because I don't live plushly in the 'burbs? I'm not thinking so.

--I have a $300 TV, my Dad has a $1000 TV.
--I have a $2000 car, my Dad has a $30,000 car.
--I live in a $60,000 house, my dad lives in a $200,000 house.

What's the difference? Sounds like my Dad got ripped off.

What's my point? I am not exactly sure, but I know there is one in here.

Originally posted by neguypdx
Garbear,

You say:


Well, let's talk about this. What is your taxable income? What is your income after taxes? Please let me know these statistics because this would enlighten me as to what you top wage earners are facing.

You and many other forum posters have gotten so wound up in being able to speak out to the world, in forums such as this, that you don't have a clue as to the actual opportunitites your presented with:(

Originally posted by Garbear
...The high income earners pay the lions share in taxes, period! They also create the jobs! Make capital investments. Fund the banks so loans are avialabe to guys like you to buy a home, lease an auto you can't afford to buy ourright, ...

I own an apartment and home on the beach of the warm nice sea.

I had a car, but now I am carfree by moral choice.

I would prefer to ride only by bike around the city, if you, with your excessive driving, would not have made some parts of the city impassable and unlivable.

By the way, the capital is the additional value, created by the Labor. This was proven by the German economist of Jewish origin Karl Marx. This is still the scientific fact, notwithstanding the sad, stupid, and cruel consequences this discovery brought on the mankind.

Nowadays, people select a home by the criteria of minimum motorized traffic in the neighborhood. Why not to make life better for all people in all the neighborhoods by taxing fuel heavily (as it deserves) and reducing the excessive driving by this.