Are SUV owners unpatriotic?

[Jewels]

Criticizing SUVs and their owners is in vogue since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Critics say gas-guzzlers keep America hooked on foreign oil, compromising U.S. foreign policy.


Critics initially faulted sport utility vehicles because they produce more greenhouse gases than smaller vehicles. Then safety concerns were raised. Now, SUVs are drawing a different kind of protest.

In Newton, Mass., last week, a dozen sport utility vehicles were spray-painted with ?No Blood for Oil? and other antiwar slogans.
Check out your options.
Record low rates
could save you a bundle.

Columnist Arianna Huffington is behind provocative new television commercials suggesting that people who buy the vehicles are supporting terrorists. ?I helped hijack an airplane,? says an actor portraying an ordinary American and SUV owner in one of the TV spots.

A group calling itself Earth on Empty, in Somerville, Mass., is "ticketing" owners of SUVs for "failure to pay attention to your own behavior." A Pennsylvania-based environmental group last year announced a "What Would Jesus Drive?" ad campaign to urge consumers to park their SUVs.

Few SUV owners are amused. Most say sport utility vehicles are superior in safety, convenience, performance and comfort. And they?re the ones buying the gasoline. Is it unpatriotic to own a SUV?

[gekko]

These damn liberal groups.

We get less than 25% of our oil from the middle east, and that's the entire mid-east. 4% comes from Saudi Arabia. Anyone who thinks an attack against Iraq has anything to due with oil is a complete idiot. The US would be just fine without the middle east. We could get more oil from Russia, and from Africa, and we'd be set. We buy oil from the middle east for one reason, and one reason only, and that's to keep the fine balance in the middle east. We don't need them, at all.

I'd rather people not drive SUVs for enviormental purposes rather than say "What would Jesus drive?"

[Jason1]

Not really...they may put out more gasses and whatnot...but if we call this unpatriotic, who knows what else we will call unpatriotic...

[manasecret]

Yeah, the U.S. doesn't get much oil from the middle east (though most other countries do), so technically all this 'Go Earth!' stuff is just crap.

But the government is willing to have those stupid commercials about how "If you do drugs you're a terrorist!," which are absolute bull****.

Yet they don't make any commercials condemning gasoline in the same way, which I think has a same or closer link to terrorism.

Why? Because our government is paid by oil companies. Just like illegal drug associations pay our government to say drugs are bad, so it keeps it underground and the prices high so the drug sellers keep raking in the money.

Three things I think our government should do:

Number One:

Well, that's just personal...

----------------------------------

Number One: Make weed legal, make laws on them similar to alcohol (only 21 or over, no weed while driving), and then put a huge tax on weed like they do for tobacco.

Why?
Price of weed drops way down because the supply is much larger while the government still makes a huge sum of cash on taxes. And eventually most of the people who want it would be growing it in their backyard. Not to mention there are many uses of weed besides smoking that could be very beneficial to the Earth, such as making paper out of it.

Number Two: Make hard drugs legal for medical purposes. Maybe they should be made just as legal as I think weed should be, but I think they're too dangerous for that.

Why?
A lot of the hard drugs have a lot of potential for helping suffering people in hospitals, but since they are completely illegal absolutely no research can be conducted to explore their potential.

Number Three: Tax the **** out of gasoline just like the government taxes tobacco and how they should tax weed. FORCE Americans to buy more efficient cars, or better yet, those new cars coming out within the next five-ten years that use fuel cells and have the engines in the wheels.

Why?
Obvious reasons. Helps the Earth and doesn't help terrrorists, and eventually we're going to have to switch away from oil anyhow.

----------------------------------

I think those first two things could be very likely, while the third is very unlikely.

First there's a certain strategy to sucking away all of the oil in the Middle East until they have nothing else and therefore will literally and figuratively be left in the dust in economy.

Middle East ---> <--- World

Also our American economy is heavily influenced by oil, so if oil is no longer in demand then it's likely our economy turns to ****. And then the American people wouldn't be happy about it unless the government explicitly said it was to hurt the Middle East or something.

BTW, I thought criticizing SUV's was in vogue since forever? I loved back when gasoline prices were rising a couple years ago, all these dumbass SUV drivers complained about the price of gasoline while they drove $40,000 small tanks (Expeditions) while drinking bottled water that costs TEN times as much per gallon as does gas.

[gekko]

Originally posted by manasecret
Yeah, the U.S. doesn't get much oil from the middle east (though most other countries do), so technically all this 'Go Earth!' stuff is just crap.

But the government is willing to have those stupid commercials about how "If you do drugs you're a terrorist!," which are absolute bull****.

Except for the fact of how much fact that is based on. And yes, the money goes all the way back to the cartels in Columbia, and the middle east. Why did some people get pissed when our soldiers burned poppy field in Afghanistan? Because it's the people's only source of income, and it's a large percentage of the countries total income.

Yet they don't make any commercials condemning gasoline in the same way, which I think has a same or closer link to terrorism.

Maybe because we get 75% of gasoline from other regions of the world. Maybe because it doesn't have that big of link to terrorism.

Why? Because our government is paid by oil companies. Just like illegal drug associations pay our government to say drugs are bad, so it keeps it underground and the prices high so the drug sellers keep raking in the money.

Please tell me you're not serious. Please. You sound like a foreigner trying to talk US politics, only you're a US citizen.

Number One: Make weed legal, make laws on them similar to alcohol (only 21 or over, no weed while driving), and then put a huge tax on weed like they do for tobacco.

Oh, that'll do a lot to help the world.

Why?
Price of weed drops way down because the supply is much larger while the government still makes a huge sum of cash on taxes. And eventually most of the people who want it would be growing it in their backyard. Not to mention there are many uses of weed besides smoking that could be very beneficial to the Earth, such as making paper out of it.

No, that's not how it works. Common weed will be avaliable, but no common person buys weed. Drug addicts buy weed, no one else. And if you know your drugs, you should know about the many different types of weed out there. No one would want the government stuff, in the same way no one wants normal cigars. There's different qualities of weed, and they give you a different effect. All you would do is cause the price of illegal weed to increase, and cause more drug users. Great, what a way to improve society.

Number Two: Make hard drugs legal for medical purposes. Maybe they should be made just as legal as I think weed should be, but I think they're too dangerous for that.

And weed isn't as dangerous? I guess you forgot that weed leads to use of hard drugs.

Why?
A lot of the hard drugs have a lot of potential for helping suffering people in hospitals, but since they are completely illegal absolutely no research can be conducted to explore their potential.

Actually, we do research of weed. There is a legal marijuana farm in the United States.

Number Three: Tax the **** out of gasoline just like the government taxes tobacco and how they should tax weed. FORCE Americans to buy more efficient cars, or better yet, those new cars coming out within the next five-ten years that use fuel cells and have the engines in the wheels.

Great economic plan. Now everyone has even less money due to increased gas tax, something they really can't avoid. And you want them to go out and spend thousands more to buy a new car. The auto industry would do well, but every other industry would do horrible because no one has any money.

First there's a certain strategy to sucking away all of the oil in the Middle East until they have nothing else and therefore will literally and figuratively be left in the dust in economy.

The middle east will basically have oil until we have new gasoline and power sources. We could kill them off now, we don't want to. The middle east needs to have money, and we need to buy oil in the middle east in order to have peace.

Also our American economy is heavily influenced by oil, so if oil is no longer in demand then it's likely our economy turns to ****. And then the American people wouldn't be happy about it unless the government explicitly said it was to hurt the Middle East or something.

I have a feeling more people would have the government if we said that.

BTW, I thought criticizing SUV's was in vogue since forever? I loved back when gasoline prices were rising a couple years ago, all these dumbass SUV drivers complained about the price of gasoline while they drove $40,000 small tanks (Expeditions) while drinking bottled water that costs TEN times as much per gallon as does gas.

If they have the money for a $40,000 car, they can afford the gas.

[GameMaster]

Hydrogen and electric fueled cars are the vehicles of tommorrow. My geology teacher got to drive a hydrogen fueled car when she went on a trip. I believe the first hydrogen station for California was installed recently also.

[gekko]

What type of hydrogen? Sure hope it's not gas.

[manasecret]

Originally posted by gekko
Except for the fact of how much fact that is based on. And yes, the money goes all the way back to the cartels in Columbia, and the middle east. Why did some people get pissed when our soldiers burned poppy field in Afghanistan? Because it's the people's only source of income, and it's a large percentage of the countries total income.

Maybe because we get 75% of gasoline from other regions of the world. Maybe because it doesn't have that big of link to terrorism.

Perhaps I should have worded bull**** better.

Money used to buy hard drugs goes to drug cartels like you said, but that's hard drugs and not so much marijuana. But my problem with the commercials was that the government essentially called a bunch of Americans terrorists because they buy drugs.

But did these Americans fly planes into the WTC? Do they bomb American buildings? Of course not.

Now, with that said, I find your support for the drug commercials while being against oil commercials hypocritical. So that 25% of oil coming from the middle east doesn't count? Just because percentages are different it means it's ok?

Well, if that's what you believe then ok. I don't support either commercial, because I think calling Americans terrorists because of indirectly supporting terrorists is extremely unfair.

Please tell me you're not serious. Please. You sound like a foreigner trying to talk US politics, only you're a US citizen.

Oil companies of course do heavily support politicians and political parties through donations, which creates a heavy influence and I shouldn't have to prove that.

I don't have proof on hand for drug associations supporting political parties and politicians in the same way as oil companies, so I'll retract what I said. I was told that by someone whom I'd trust to have a credible source, so until he gets back to me, I agree that what I said isn't true.

Oh, that'll do a lot to help the world.

No, that's not how it works. Common weed will be avaliable, but no common person buys weed. Drug addicts buy weed, no one else. And if you know your drugs, you should know about the many different types of weed out there. No one would want the government stuff, in the same way no one wants normal cigars. There's different qualities of weed, and they give you a different effect. All you would do is cause the price of illegal weed to increase, and cause more drug users. Great, what a way to improve society.

And weed isn't as dangerous? I guess you forgot that weed leads to use of hard drugs.

"In Amsterdam, both marijuana use and heroin use went *down* after marijuana was decriminalized -- even though there was a short rise in cannabis use right after decriminalization."

As for the price of illegal weed going up, the only illegal weed you could be talking about (assuming weed was legalized) would be the ones with other illegal drugs added in, and most weed users don't use that. Strong natural weed isn't something that couldn't be grown outside of where it's grown now.

Also, drug addicts aren't the only ones buying weed. Yes, they are the ones buying it to get high, but hemp has been used for thousands of years all over the world and up until the 1930's in the U.S. for hundreds of uses. Hemp can be used for most everything that trees, cotton, and fossil fuels can be used for, while doing a much better job in most cases, and it doesn't hurt the soil, use as many chemicals, or hurt the environment like the other stuff does.

And marijuana does not lead to the use of hard drugs. That is completely unproven and just propaganda. If anything, legalizing marijuana would lead to a decrease in use of hard drugs because buyers wouldn't have to go to a place that sells hard drugs to get weed (as is said in the quote above).

http://www.hempfiles.com/faqs/hempfaq.shtml#1-1

There are probably a hundred sites like that now with huge faqs. This one has a bibliography of sorts citing numerous books, so I chose it.

Actually, we do research of weed. There is a legal marijuana farm in the United States.

And there should be hundreds more, and other huge farms to provide hemp for all its other beneficial uses.

But I meant hard drugs in particular. Absolutely no research is allowed on hard drugs while there could be a lot of potential in them as medical drugs.

Great economic plan. Now everyone has even less money due to increased gas tax, something they really can't avoid. And you want them to go out and spend thousands more to buy a new car. The auto industry would do well, but every other industry would do horrible because no one has any money.

You're right, and that's what I meant to point out in my second to last paragraph. It most likely would hurt our economy quite a bit.

But perhaps a gradual tax increase would do exactly what we need. It's not as if Americans couldn't recover; they did exactly that back in the 70's or whenever it was when gasoline prices hiked to alarming amounts for back then. And we could easily do it again, we would just have to adapt.

The middle east will basically have oil until we have new gasoline and power sources. We could kill them off now, we don't want to. The middle east needs to have money, and we need to buy oil in the middle east in order to have peace.

They need money to have peace? They have money now yet there is no peace. I'm not really arguing, I'm more interested in what you mean by that.

Seems to me if they have no money they would be another Africa, where they have nothing so nobody cares about them.

I have a feeling more people would have the government if we said that.

I'm not sure what you're saying. More people would be mad at the government or praise the government or what?

If they have the money for a $40,000 car, they can afford the gas.

Exactly my point.

[gekko]

I am going to respond, though your logic is so completely screwy, I wonder why I bother.

Originally posted by manasecret
Money used to buy hard drugs goes to drug cartels like you said, but that's hard drugs and not so much marijuana. But my problem with the commercials was that the government essentially called a bunch of Americans terrorists because they buy drugs.

No, they told you not to buy drugs so that terrorists don't have as much funding.

But did these Americans fly planes into the WTC? Do they bomb American buildings? Of course not.

Again, refer to last point.

Now, with that said, I find your support for the drug commercials while being against oil commercials hypocritical. So that 25% of oil coming from the middle east doesn't count? Just because percentages are different it means it's ok?

The oil money funds the countries. Our 25% of oil coming from the mid-east doesn't give terrorists much money. It's mostly supporting the countries, like Saudi Arabia. They don't support terrorism as in paying them, they just sorta don't mind it going on. The oil money isn't a big source of cash for terrorists.

Well, if that's what you believe then ok. I don't support either commercial, because I think calling Americans terrorists because of indirectly supporting terrorists is extremely unfair.

I again think you misunderstood the point of the commercial. And they are indirectly supporting terrorists. Why not try to scare them off? Only good can come of it.

Oil companies of course do heavily support politicians and political parties through donations, which creates a heavy influence and I shouldn't have to prove that.

Yes you should.

"In Amsterdam, both marijuana use and heroin use went *down* after marijuana was decriminalized -- even though there was a short rise in cannabis use right after decriminalization."

And in Kennessaw County, Georgia, all able-body heads-of-households are required to own a gun for protection. Since then, every category of crime has gone done 80%, with murder and burglery down 87%. So do you think the world would be a better place if everyone owned a handgun as well?

As for the price of illegal weed going up, the only illegal weed you could be talking about (assuming weed was legalized) would be the ones with other illegal drugs added in, and most weed users don't use that. Strong natural weed isn't something that couldn't be grown outside of where it's grown now.

Smoking weed leads to addiction to weeds which leads to you wanting stronger weed which leads to people buying stronger weed which is harder to get, and in the end drug cartels would still make more money. Not to mention, weed leads to use of harder drugs, which are still illegal, and even bigger money makers.

Also, drug addicts aren't the only ones buying weed.

Yes they are. For the .00000000000000001% of America which might have a good reason to use it for other purposes, it's not worth making it legal. You just support drug use, which you seem to be forgetting, is a problem in our society, not a solution.

And marijuana does not lead to the use of hard drugs.

Yes it does. I'm sure you can't get addicted to it either, right? Or die after one use? You can always tell who the druggies are, they always try to say how weed is harmless.

If anything, legalizing marijuana would lead to a decrease in use of hard drugs because buyers wouldn't have to go to a place that sells hard drugs to get weed (as is said in the quote above).

Obviously, if their doing hard drugs now, weed isn't feeding their addiction. So legalizing weed doesn't help.

There are probably a hundred sites like that now with huge faqs. This one has a bibliography of sorts citing numerous books, so I chose it.

And there should be hundreds more, and other huge farms to provide hemp for all its other beneficial uses.

No there shouldn't.

But I meant hard drugs in particular. Absolutely no research is allowed on hard drugs while there could be a lot of potential in them as medical drugs.

You're insane.

They need money to have peace? They have money now yet there is no peace. I'm not really arguing, I'm more interested in what you mean by that.

There is a crucial balance in the middle east, and the second something changes, there won't be any peace. I could go into detail, but it branches off into numerous stories. Ask Joeiss.

Seems to me if they have no money they would be another Africa, where they have nothing so nobody cares about them.

Africa has stuff, whether we buy it or not is another story. There is a small African island that is very pro-US and sitting on tons of oil. We just don't use it... yet.

And in conclusion, if you're trying to help the issue with overpopulation, I respect your concearn, but this is not the way to do it. And if you're not, and you're serious, you need to lay off the weed. Drugs have no benefit to our country.

[manasecret]

Originally posted by gekko
And in conclusion, if you're trying to help the issue with overpopulation, I respect your concearn, but this is not the way to do it. And if you're not, and you're serious, you need to lay off the weed. Drugs have no benefit to our country.

You haven't even read anything I said then or researched much on hemp. Instead you're calling me names or accusing me of using drugs, and choosing to ignore everything I said.

There are many many uses of hemp that I guess you're ignoring. Also, cannibus has been proven useful in medicinal uses and many states are clamoring to legalize it. Hard drugs also have potential in medicine but no research is allowed.

I'm not promoting drug abuse of any kind (and I'm not promoting completely legalizing hard drugs if you somehow thought that). You know, alcohol is abused, cigarettes are abused, subcription drugs are abused, pain relievers are abused, and they're all legal to use in certain ways. Why completely shut the door to drugs with so much potential, especially hemp?

As for oil companies donating to political parties you're just being completely naive if you don't think that happens. Heck, many politicians have their own money in oil.

To me you're the one with the screwy logic, because you're just completely blinding yourself.

I don't care about the commercials; to me that's an opinion and I told you what I thought.

[Blackmane]

I believe that cutting our dependency on oil would be very beneficial not only to the environment, but it could help the middle east.

Right the Middle eastern countries make almost all of their money off of selling their oil. From this money, middle eastern leaders and dictators are able to stay in power by keeping control of the money source (oil) and keep control. Saddam Hussein gets a lot of his funding for armies, weapons, and chemical materials from other countries buying oil from him.

Now, if we, and perhaps other countries who are major buyers of oil, suddenely (or gradually) started cutting dependency on oil by more fuel-efficient cars and alternate energy sources, then these bad rulers will not receive capital to fund any army or weapons. This destabilization will allow for new leadership to step in, whether by the people lashing out, or by some intervention by America.

These countries, without having oil for money, will need new sources. Since they have nothing else really good in the middle east, they will have to start actually wielding the talents and skills of the people and their labor to bolster their economy. Human capital can be best used through democracy or some other form of gov. similar to democracy.

Who knows, its possible. But just think, what is a country friendly to US? Kuwait. Does Kuwait have oil? No

Hope my point makes some sense...and if it doesn't, oh well

[Angrist]

*wonders what a SUV is*

PS*didn't read the whole thread to see what a SUV is*

[gekko]

Manasecret, I'm done with you. Think what you want, but your logic is flawed.

Originally posted by Blackmane
Right the Middle eastern countries make almost all of their money off of selling their oil. From this money, middle eastern leaders and dictators are able to stay in power by keeping control of the money source (oil) and keep control. Saddam Hussein gets a lot of his funding for armies, weapons, and chemical materials from other countries buying oil from him.

Keeping these leaders is power is part of the reason we buy oil from these countries. Not Sadaam, but the others, such as Saudi Arabia. Even if the US operated completely on solar power, the only countries who will do this are the ones with the money to afford the technologies. Iraq will get money for oil from other countries.

Now, if we, and perhaps other countries who are major buyers of oil, suddenely (or gradually) started cutting dependency on oil by more fuel-efficient cars and alternate energy sources, then these bad rulers will not receive capital to fund any army or weapons. This destabilization will allow for new leadership to step in, whether by the people lashing out, or by some intervention by America.

They don't need much money. Then they just rebudget things. The people starve, the military improves. It's like North Korea.

Who knows, its possible. But just think, what is a country friendly to US? Kuwait. Does Kuwait have oil? No

Yes they do. Not very much when compared to some of the other countries, like Saudi Arabia, but they have oil.

SUV==Sport Utility Vehicle. It's a mix between a minivan and a truck.

[manasecret]

Originally posted by gekko
Manasecret, I'm done with you. Think what you want, but your logic is flawed.

And I say quite the same to you.

[The Don]

hmm you have AOL too?