Truth for SUV Loving Airheads II

[VimyJ]

It has been proven that once per century SUV's are not a complete waste of resources. When not sitting upside down in ditches, a some of them gave rides to people during a snow event in 2003 for a day and a half.

Interesting how an opposing viewpoint to "Geek SUV bashers" gets locked down. Is this the NICO general chat Forum or AZhitman's personal soapbox? Are you saying that it is perrmissable to call people who view SUV's as a general waste of resources a "geek" anti SUV basher but not he other way around?

[themadscientist]

I have no issue with SUVs, some of their drivers need an attitude adjustment. Similar to my feeling about Hondas.I do beleive that we assume in America too readily that a driver's license means the person can drive anything less than a bus. People should have to "qualify" with a car. Your basic test passer can drive a compact like a Focus. You want to drive a midsize? you will have to test in a midsize, and on up. If you want to drive an Excursion you have to pass the test in one of those battleships. I guarantee that there would be a lot less of them upside down in ditches if non-driving inferiority complex possessing people were not legally able to drive them. SUVs are like anything, when used irresponsibly they can hurt people, when used responsibly they can be beneficial.

[WDRacing]

But the same thing can be said for todays youth wrapping themselves around poles cause they can't handle the whopping 120hp Civic's.

SUV's are ok in my book. I've owned 3 of them. I think alot of peoples negative attitude towards the SUV is because they simply can't afford one.

I do however, hate Honda's. Mostly because they're motors lack "Q" which is somthing I think is a must have. If the VTEC were applied to a 2.4 liter stroker like the KA, I think it would be quite a bit better. I also hate FWD in general.

WD

[themadscientist]

I don't care about kids wrapping themselves around poles as long as they only kill themselves, it's evolution in action. But what would you rather have a ratard crash into you in; a civic or an escalade?:shocked2

[WDRacing]

Chances are, the Escalade isn't driving faster then say 55 off the highway. So the ratard, as you put it, driving the civic at 100mph will probably do as much damage.

I guess we could use a little gene pool cleansing as well.

[SmithSR]

It's not so much what we drive, but how we drive it. Don't underestimate the power of an idiot behind the wheel of his economy car.

[subculture]

Quote »I have no issue with SUVs, some of their drivers need an attitude adjustment.[/quote]I personally think that SUV owners as a whole are no better or worse off at driving than everybody else.It's just that in such a large vehicle, everything they do wrong really gets noticed.

[APEXi240]

SUV's are ok in my book. I've owned 3 of them. I think alot of peoples negative attitude towards the SUV is because they simply can't afford one.

You have to be kidding me...this couldn't be any farther from the truth.

Vimy, really, your constant ranting and b***hing about everything is getting annoying...can't you go to some Canadian message board that hates on America and its ways all day long? I agree with some of your views, but how you present them, and go ON AND ON AND ON AND ON is just annoying...you end up not proving anything to anyone because most STOP READING your crap.

[89sxRCR]

It has been proven that once per century SUV's are not a complete waste of resources. When not sitting upside down in ditches, a some of them gave rides to people during a snow event in 2003 for a day and a half.

Interesting how an opposing viewpoint to "Geek SUV bashers" gets locked down. Is this the NICO general chat Forum or AZhitman's personal soapbox? Are you saying that it is perrmissable to call people who view SUV's as a general waste of resources a "geek" anti SUV basher but not he other way around?

If we got rid of everything that was a "waste of resources" we would have about a billion less people and practically no material things...

[ninjak84]

AZHitman's post was made in a humorous fashion, and included an interesting article to read.This thread is a waste of space, and proves the poster to be ignorant. Don't you have anything better to do than look for fight on the internet "VimyJ"? You know perfectly well what Hitman meant in his thread, don't be a moron.

[AZhitman]

Gentlemen, I appreciate your support - But I can defend myself.

Especially in my 7200-lb. Suburban (and conveniently, MY soapbox can be easily transported inside... Hey, another great reason to own an SUV!)

p.s. Go easy on Vim - He's simply a victim of the left-wing propaganda machine turned up to 11.

[WDRacing]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by APEXi240 "]You have to be kidding me...this couldn't be any farther from the truth.

Is this about what I said or what VJ said. Cause if your going to disagree with somthing I said so profoundly you might want to post your opinions why, not just say I'm wrong. Thx...

WD

[APEXi240]

That was about what you said. My father, mother, cousins, and friends can all afford SUVs, but there is nothing but hatred among them. My father gets pissed even riding behind one.

We live in New Jersey. The only offroading these a***oles are doing is pulling into the gravel parking lot to pick up their kids from soccer practice.

I can honesltly say there are MANY people who hate SUVs for legitamate reasons, not because they can't afford them.

[MaineExport]

[quote=" APEXi240 [BVimy, really, your constant ranting and b***hing about everything is getting annoying...can't you go to some Canadian message board that hates on America and its ways all day long? I agree with some of your views, but how you present them, and go ON AND ON AND ON AND ON is just annoying...you end up not proving anything to anyone because most STOP READING your crap. [/quote]

LMFAO..... Canadian message boards!!!! What would they talk about? Soo.... huw's da wedder up dar eh? Hey... pass me down da ice da puck dar eh! just kidding guys... all in fun.

Ayway... thank you Apexi... it's nice to see that even the people that agree with him are tired of hearng him rant. At this point it's just plain annoying.

[AZhitman]

I'm the first guy called by at least 20 friends when they want to:

Pull their boat to the lake, go play in the mud, go to the dunes with their sandrail, pull up fenceposts, get THEIR suv unstuck, move, take seven kids camping, take the 2 Great Danes to the vet, pull up a stump, pull their pop-up camper, etc etc etc.

BTW - ANYBODY who can afford a car can afford an SUV. Just means they'll have to buy an older one.

p.s. Straight-axle 'Burbs and 4Runners make kick-a$$ off-roaders (and are great for picking the kids up from school)!:D

[VimyJ]

[quote=" AZhitman p.s. Go easy on Vim - He's simply a victim of the left-wing propaganda machine turned up to 11. [/quote]Actually, feel more like a warrior of the true liberal spirit that founded the USA, fending off the putrid darts of brown shirt propaganda. Is it oil or is it freedom that is at stake here? Oil makes more cents. (pardon the pun)

BTW, what exactly have I said that is "liberal" in the popular neoconsrvative jingoistic jargon? That W is a dullard with no imagination? Yes, many liberals say that. That W & Co. want the oil and resultant power (read money)? Yes, many liberals have said that. That W is putting together a the flimsiest case of obtuse circumstantial evidence to convince an over trusting populace that this is a war for the "American Way"? Yes, liberals have said that, too (now that I think about it, that is an original thought). That the US should get the backing of the UN in order to enforce the UN's resolutions? Yes, that too, has been mentioned. That going into what will be a nasty, vicious war and giving tax breaks to the very richest will plunge the US into enormous debt that will negatively affect the US standard of living? Yes, that has been uttered.

I have also said that a war between east and west is inevitible. I have also said that a war sanctioned by the UN is justified (afterall, the resolutions have not been heeded by Iraq or Israel for that matter), Muslims are going to take such a war very personally, establishing a functioning stabile democracy in Iraq is a fantacy and that W couldn't beat Saddam in a debate (I only base that comment on their relative inate inteligence levels not on the topic of the debate. IMHO it's the West all the way now and forever)

One thing is for sure, wasting money fueling innefficient vehicles makes our Islamic foes richer and richer (there. I kept the post on topic). This will be a big fight and the US needs all her freinds for this one. This will be a war between east and west. We all need a better leader than W & Co.(a subsidiary of the Carlilse Group and Haliburton Industries).

Don't you find it in the least bit odd that the president and vice president whose fortunes and expertise (well expertise on W's part is a misnomer seeing that he never turned a profit on an oil deal in his whole life, out foxed by oilmen everywhere he was) are derived from the exploitation of oil are so keen on waging a war for control over this oil rich region? Maybe it's just a cooincidence.

If you don't think oil has anything to do with a straight out money grab in Iraq, then maybe you should check out these artist's conceptions of some prime Florida lake front property I have for sale.

Call me unAmerican is you must but I say the emporer has no clothes.

Good night and good luck.

[Bubba1]

VIM: SUV's are not evil and the cause of our oil problem. It's the driver. SUV's are not for everyone. Obviously you don't need one. But to a guy, who hauls around his wife,kids,pets, luggage, or hauls big items frequently, or goes off roading, a J30t will not suffice. This is not a nation of VIM's. We all have different needs/wants, and a free society allows us to buy whatever we want/need.

As far as SUV's being horrible to the environment. Not true. A person's driving style, how much he/she drives, and how well they maintain their vehicle are far more significant than the vehicle itself. My well maintained 4 Runner gets close to 20mpg. That's better than several 240sx owners on this bb. A kid in a J30t, driving like a fool can have lower gas mileage as a soccermom in an Expedition. Why no outrage over the J30?

instead of ranting about SUV's and the Bush family scandals, how about providing ideas on how we can improve our situation? Alternative fuels, alternate modes of transportation, mass transit, bicycles, telecommuting, trains. I would think any of these would appeal to a warrior of the liberal spirit...

Oh I agree there are some true obnoxious SUV owners out there and there people that probably don't need to be driving them, but I respect their right to drive what they want.

Regards.

[MaineExport]

instead of ranting about SUV's and the Bush family scandals, how about providing ideas on how we can improve our situation?...................... I would think any of these would appeal to a warrior of the liberal spirit...

Because that would take tangible evidence and an actual original thought process. It's hard to come up with solutions when your argument contains half-truths and biased interpretations of 'historical precedent'. When you are busy spewing forth the latest propaganda and accusing everyone else of being below you... it takes time away from anything you might have actually been able to contribute.

It's unfortunate when an intelligent person begins to believe that they are wiser and more informed than everyone else, they sometimes become blind to reality. The view from the soapbox can be a distorted one.

The champion of the liberal spirit seems to represent the party quite well! Full of misinformation and cramming it down the throats of anyone who will listen. Those who are captivated by the Ricky Lake style of politics are easily influenced and fall in line nicely. They rely on you being led by emotion not logic. They prey on the fact that you will make decisions based on the tugging of your heat strings.

[VimyJ]

[quote=" maineimport They rely on you being led by emotion not logic. They prey on the fact that you will make decisions based on the tugging of your heat strings.[/quote]

HeeHee! I love it when people trot out the neoconservative catchphrases. If you ever listen to the rightwing entertainers who angrily rant and rave about emotions, you know full well who is attempting to sway their audience with emotion.

In regard to this thread, it is logical to say that SUV's are generally an innefficient use of resources. The percentage of SUV's that are actually used to perform off road or truck tasks is miniscule compared to the percentage that never see that kind of duty. Seems like objective observation rather than emotional appeal.

Is emotion invoked when one observes the US's $320 billion current accounts deficit? Could a large part of this debt be due to consumption of imported fossil fuels? US money is flowing out of the US and into the banks accounts of potential and actual enemies. That is a fact. It is a fact that overall vehicle fuel efficiency is falling due to the popularity of heavy duty vehicles being used as basic commuter transportation. Fact: The US does not have the domestic supplies of crude oil to supply the demand and therefore must import petroleum. Control of the supply of crude has launched war before, i.e., Japan's conquest of Southeast Asia for it's oil feilds when they were cut off from US exports of same. Fact: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The emotional appeals to "angry white men" made by bombastic neoconservative entertainers are replete with name calling and vendictive. "Europe is our enemy!" one idiot ranted on an afternoon talk show. For crying out loud! Talk about your emotional diatribes! :rolleyes

[AZhitman]

Originally posted by VimyJ "]In regard to this thread, it is logical to say that SUV's are generally an innefficient use of resources.

Yep - We remember the thread well. That's not what this thread was originally about - Unfortunately, my attempt to lighten the mood with a feel-good story about a few well-equipped Samaritans fell squarely on the partially-deaf ears of Captain Quibble.

It is a fact that overall vehicle fuel efficiency is falling due to the popularity of heavy duty vehicles being used as basic commuter transportation

Wrong again. Overall fuel efficiency is at an all-time high historically. BTW, did you know that sales of LARGE SUV's (Suburbans, Excursions, etc) actually fell in fiscal year 2002? The rteand is reversing itelf, and will take a good 6-10 years to undo itself - Approximately the same amount of time it took to come about.

One 727 passenger jet flight from Phoenix to Chicago uses enough petroleum product to fuel a large car (EPA example: a Taurus or Impala) for an average year's driving (12-15K miles). Perhaps we should all quit flying - Driving's FAR more fuel efficient.

Bubba raises a good point. There's no outrage against the J30 or any other mdsize car - Want to know why? Because it's not the "enemy du jour". Reminds me of when I was young, and the outrage in the Deep South directed against FOREIGN car owners. Some were in danger of physical harm because of a misguided propagandist notion that they had somehow cost some American a job.

I suppose one would question why Mr. Mike hasn't yet done his part to help out the situation he rails so vehemently against - I think a Ford Aspire or a Chevy Metro would suit him just fine. I'm certain when he decides to "join the good fight" in actions instead of words, the J will sell promptly from our Buy/Sell/Trade forum.

[VimyJ]

[quote=" AZhitman ... the partially-deaf ears of Captain Quibble.[/quote]More personal attacks. :rolleyes You're still sore 'cause I mooned you and got the last legitmate word in on the locked thread, aren't you? LMAO!

Part with my J30t? I'd rather part with my wife. :icesangel

[ninjak84]

Hmmm...Due to the political overtone of this thread, Ninjak84 will no longer be participating

[MaineExport]

More personal attacks. :rolleyes You're still sore 'cause I mooned you and got the last legitmate word in on the locked thread, aren't you? LMAO!

This is the response one gives when he knows he is wrong. You have no argument to what Hitman said... because he's right.

Do you care to cite your statitics about overall vehicle efficiency.... or are you content to keep assuming your opinions are fact?

I don't know who is right.... but I've got a pretty good idea, based on Vimy's track record of passing off spun-propaganda as fact, that Az might be right on.

[themadscientist]

I don't give a flying %#@* about vehicle fuel efficency. I am going to burn as much dead dino as I need to to go faster. You want a battleship SUV, fineYou want an econobox hamster wheel, fineIt's called freedom chump, don't hate just be happy with your electric go-kart and shut up, don't force you B.S. on me. Little green-geeks like you are responsible for targeting my beloved musclecars in the name of "stopping air pollution" Go picket a smog-belching factory if you need to whine in a public forum.Treehuggers can suck it.

[VimyJ]

[quote=" maineimport You have no argument to what Hitman said... because he's right.

Do you care to cite your statitics about overall vehicle efficiency.... or are you content to keep assuming your opinions are fact?[/quote]

Maine, a little deductive reasoning goes a long way. Here, I'll walk you through it. Do you know what CAFE standards are? If you don't do a search.

Average fleet fuel efficiency of auto manufacturers are declining because light trucks and SUV's are forming a greater part of their overall vehicle sales. Since SUV's etc. are generally heavier and require larger engines to power them, they consume fuel at a higher rate than passenger cars. Ergo, the fleet fuel efficiency is declining in relation to the duties the fleet perform. Pretty straight ahead, eh? The engines of modern vehicles might gain more energy per unit of fuel burned but since they burn much more of it to go from A to B (the vehicles are substantially heavier after all) are less efficient in terms of the amount of fuel used. This is pretty obvious to most people. More gas guzzling SUV's mean more gas consumed. I can't think of a simpler way to put it.

I guess AZ agrees with the rest of my post because the only thing it seems he might take a crack at is the very definition of quibbling and it turns out the he was barking up the wrong tree.

Everything I said was based in fact and presented logically. I guess you agree with everything I said, too, since you could only chime in as AZ's sycophant on something he didn't comprehend.

The truth about SUV's in their general public use is that they increase the US's dependence on foreign petroleum.

Good luck with your next insulting comeback. I hope you do real good.

[Mayhem_J30]

Speaking of insults, lets keep that at less than a minimum and somewhere around NONE. Discuss nicely, this is a debate not an argument/mud slinging contest. You all just make yourselves sound like idiots yourself when you do it. When someone offers their opinion lets respond to the person's opinion and not their personal integrity. These threads are starting to get old.

[MaineExport]

When someone offers their opinion lets respond to the person's opinion and not their personal integrity.

Agreed... but when opinion is presented as fact... then that person should be called into check. Also, what value is a person's opinion when they completely lack integrity? It is one thing to present opinion and debate it as such. It is quite another to arugue with false information under the guise of fact.

Vimy, I'll assume that since you can't cite a source... and the FACT that you covered it up with doble talk... that once again you were presenting opinion as fact. Regardless of the 'logic' of your debate... without a source and actual numbers I very much doubt the credibility of your supposed facts.

Maine, a little deductive reasoning goes a long way.

Yeah... it sure can... the problem is that the results are not facts.. but conclusions.

Good luck with your next insulting comeback. I hope you do real good.

The fact that you think it is a game of insults speaks volumes for your maturity and intellect. And yeah... garsh I shur do hope I do reel "GOOD"!

[VimyJ]

[quote=" maineimport they completely lack integrity?[/quote]

Mr. Moderator?

Maine, please don't gainsay. Prove me wrong. Everybody would be interested in a logical argument proving the conclusion that the US is less dependent on fossil fuels now than lets say 5 or 10 years ago.

Quote » The fact that you think it is a game of insults speaks volumes for your maturity and intellect. And yeah... garsh I shur do hope I do reel "GOOD"! [/quote]Hey! At least I didn't moon you. Was the poor grammar a jab, a typo or a poor proofread? Your last comment seems a little ironic, though, at least to me.

[TrueSlide]

Cell fones are eViL, they should be illegal while be used while drivings. LOTS(not all) of drivers, can not concentrate and drive at the same times. Mostly girls. Around my area, its either the preppy girl who worries about who she is getting drunk with rather then pay attention to the road. Or the bimbo in the SUV that is more into the cell fone then the real world. And then their is me, poor guy is a thin metal nissan 240sx CELL FONES ARE EVIL, thats why I dont have one. They should be used in emergencys and not for indepth conversations on the road, sheesh, Iam done ranting, for now......????? :evilhaha

[MaineExport]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by VimyJ "]Everybody would be interested in a logical argument proving the conclusion that the US is less dependent on fossil fuels now than lets say 5 or 10 years ago.

That wasn't the point of contention... I'm still waiting for you to cite your statistics regarding 'overall vehicle efficiency'. Instead of turning this around on me AGAIN (for the third time) maybe you could address the question at hand. I have not made any statement that would require evidence to support my OPINION. You have presented supposed facts without evidence... and have failed to give credit to, and let us review your source. Spin the issue as you will, but we both know your bluff has been called... and that's more than enough to satisfy me!:D

Hey! At least I didn't moon you.

Thank you for that.

Was the poor grammar a jab, a typo or a poor proofread? Your last comment seems a little ironic, though, at least to me.

I had assumed your erroneous use of the word 'good' (as opposed to 'well') was an apparent jab at me. I was returning in jest.