chucK Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Here's the ads on the internet anti-SUV ads Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 9, 2003 Posted January 9, 2003 Now that ain't fair! Some of us don't have our own website where we can flip stuff around and whatnot! Quote
Fairweather Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 The main financiers of this ad campaign are Ariana Huffington, Norman Lear, and Larry David. All three of them ride in BIG chauffered limos, fly in private jets, and live in 10,000+ square foot homes that need to be heated, I'm sure. In addition, Mr Lear owns 21 automobiles. Fucking hypocrites ALL! (And typical liberals) Â Re: the drug ad comparison...Last time I checked drugs we're illegal; and SUV's are not. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Do you really believe that something's legality validates its use or existence? Please. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Say, you're not from Spanaway, are you? Quote
AlpineK Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Re: the drug ad comparison...Last time I checked drugs we're illegal; and SUV's are not. Â Yeah but drugs are fun and people who own SUVs and never take them off road are dorks. Quote
allthumbs Posted January 10, 2003 Author Posted January 10, 2003 Best thing to do with a new rig is pull out a baseball bat and smack the shit outta it in a few places. Then you're over the "don't scratch it shit" and can get on with some off-roadin' Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Yeah but drugs are fun  "drugs are good they let you do things that you know you not should  and when you do 'em people think that you're cool and when you do 'em people think that you're cool"  - NOFX, 'Drugs Are Good'  Well, that's three relevant NOFX quotes today. Must be about quittin' time! Quote
jkrueger Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Re: the drug ad comparison...Last time I checked drugs we're illegal; and SUV's are not. Â By this analogy, and supposing the propaganda of both campaigns to be true, I think I could prove that SUVers contributed more money to the cause than drugs (again, supposing that there are more SUVers than users, and that said SUVers are more addicted to gas than users to their smack). Therefore, since SUVs are more of a "problem", it should be the use of SUVs that is made illegal, while smack should be legalized. Â Hell, if all smack were legal the govt. could just tax it and use that money to fund their war efforts. Add some prostitution and gambling, and we could probably fund our way out of, well, almost anything. Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Careful, that's an awfully logical line of reasoning you're spouting, JK. Quote
Fairweather Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 How about mini-vans? They get equally bad gas mileage. Do you hate those people too? ....'fess up.... It's really about class-warfare with you guys, isn't it? Â What about those "mini-SUV's" like the RAV4 and Honda CRV? Do they qualify as planet killers? Are the drivers terrorist huggers too? Â What kinda milage you gettin' these days AK? Matt's Audi A4 gets pretty good mileage! Are you doing your part too? Quote
Fairweather Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 From Spanaway? No, DFA. Is that where you buy your meth? Quote
AlpineK Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 No I don't have a problem with Minivans. If you gotta tote a bunch of kids around then it already sucks to be you, so I wouldn't rag on them. SUV owners that never go off road deserve unlimited abuse. Â Yeah Fairweather I'm down with class warfare. I'm against anyone of your class. Quote
j_b Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 SUV owners that never go off road deserve unlimited abuse  so what kind of abuse would they warrant if they all tore up the backcountry? But I assume you mean going off road for something more useful than burning gas and shredding soils and veg. Quote
MtnGoat Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 "So, MtnGoat; when your SUV kills some Geo Metro-driving mother and her kids in a collision," Â So, are you saying I set out to intentionally target and kill her and her kids because I don't like her choices? That because she won't do what I want, I planned to harm her, hunted her, and killed her? Not even close. Â "or when DFA starts developing lung cancer from breathing the coal-burning-power-plant's worth of shit it spews into the air, are we not talking about an irretrievable loss?" Â What, did I say I supported spewing unregulated shit into the atmosphere? Did I direct a particular bad molecule just to you to do you in intentionally? Â "Is it not then the right of the aggrieved party to seek appropriately damaging compensatory action against *you*?" Â If I intentionally specifically harmed them, sure. Shall the person who dies in a collision because you wouldn't let them choose a larger car be able to sue *you*? Now why is it I get the impression you wish to hold me responsible for risks I supposedly force on you, but you find your actions and restrictions free of risk to others? Â We're not talking about generalized random risk here from car accidents or pollution. We're talking about individuals hunting down people for doing what they don't approve of, and *specifically* harming them for it. Â Quote
MtnGoat Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 (edited) "The architecture of your Libertarian philosophy is inherently violent, condoning much more than simple arson." Â Yeah, right. I'm the one who says I should be able to tell my neighbors what peaceful choices they can make, and back it with threats. Not. Â Maybe you can explain how you intend to back up all the myriad laws you support, without innately and specifically threatening people with loss of life and liberty. Show me all the laws you support which have no penalties. Â Show me the violence I do to you over your peaceful choices. Show me how I am willing to send people to your house to threaten you when you won't give me the money I demand you pay for my social goals. Show me how I am willing to send people to threaten you if you won't hire who I think you should. Â It's *your* philosophy that's rooted in violence, my guess is you just figure since you detail someone else to do it, and care a whole lot, that it's OK. Â Now, I can't claim I'm totally against all coercion, because we do have to live in an imperfect world. What I do claim is that I support far less coercion than a number of you folks. Â Â Edited January 10, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote
MtnGoat Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 "We will only have fuel efficient transportation via one of two avenues:" Â That's odd, take a look at any dealership, right now, today, and you'll see fuel efficent transportation parked right there, ready for anyone who chooses it. Â Â Quote
rbw1966 Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 burning cars is good old-fashioned fun. Â I don't suppose you know anything about that car fire in the parking garage across from Pioneer Place do you? Quote
freeclimb9 Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 My terrorist-supporting, Japanese-made, f'ed-up-dented-side, ozone-hole-depleting, road-trip-basecamp, most-precious-vehicle SUV was great to drive through 6" of fresh on the town roads this morning. Quote
iain Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 are you saying 6" of snow requires an SUV? My '85 camry's been through much worse than that... Quote
freeclimb9 Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 You're the man at the wheel. In my experience, even an inch of slushy snow causes people to drive like idiots. It's a lot of fun to get sideways. And it's also fun to click on the 4wd and actually be in control while the Camrys on the road are spinning at the intersection, or unable to scale the hills. It's even better to chug on up to the mountainss to enjoy the recent snowfall, but I'm on nurse-duty for a few days. BTW, "terrorists" has become so diluted by its use for trivial shit that it's tending towards meaninglessness. For example, I've called bullshit on on people who refer to WTO member countries as "terrorists". Is there a better term for terrorism-lite? Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 Terroritos? Petiterroristes? Li'l bombers? Osama mini-Laden? Small Quaeda? Â Take your pick, hoss; and there's more where those came from. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.