Art Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 No worries ASF. I was actually doing some work and thought I'd put that together for you. But, you don't really have to go very far to find the data. I supplied you parts of the 220 page National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report. It's available on line to anyone all the time. It's not a question of whether I'm right. The NHTSA reports these numbers. They are all factually accurate as per their report. The NHTSA is a department of the United States Department of Transportation. The numbers provided in the yearly Traffic Safety Fact sheets break down every single accident in the U.S. every year. This information is as factual is it gets. If you go to it, go to page 79 of the PDF and take a look at the 876 number of large utility vehicles involved in a fatal accident. The difference between what I presented to you here and what you've seen elsewhere is other people produce agenda reports where they lump the findings of light trucks -- which include SUVs, Vans, station wagons, pickups, etc. -- and then say the large SUV is dangerous. There may be a mildly compelling case to be made that pickups are dangerous. Even normal SUVs like the Cherokee or Explorer. But, "researchers" as talked about in the article you put here have an agenda. They hate SUVs. They find a writer who's friendly to that and the produce loaded material that doesn't present the whole of the situation in any competent or meaningful way and their ultimate goal is really to rid the world of the SUV on oil grounds and little else. The facts I've given are unfettered and direct from the report the government measures traffic safety by each year. Any error would be on the part of the government, not me . I wouldn't read the Bradsher book. It's hyperbolic tripe. You can tell from the quotes provided in this article. Anything you would post from this guy would be tainted in the extreme. And since some of his information is gleaned directly from the government, you should just go to the unfiltered report and take a gander yourself. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but almost everything I write is a facts-based argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awgustlab Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Jesus drives a Landcruiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roofgoat Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by just skins baby I didn't read the whole article, but if people would leave ten minutes earlier, put down the cell phone and don't tailgate the roads would be a lot safer. I'm pretty safety concious when I'm driving. I pretty much keep up with the old 4 second rule we were taught in school. The above statement says it all regarding safety. And anyone who says SUV drivers are more aggressive, arrogant, dangerous etc. is flat out lying. As an SUV driver, I see every make and model of car/truck driver that is equally careless and out-of-line on a day to day basis. Little cars are just as much part of the bad driver problem as big SUV's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by Awgustlab Jesus drives a Landcruiser. You are an admitted self-deluded a*hole since you drive an SUV, I don't believe you! I drives a BMW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 ASF will love this article! From Yahoo! News: TV Commercials Link SUVs, Terror Funds Wed Jan 8, 9:10 PM ET By NADA EL SAWY, Associated Press Writer LOS ANGELES - A group hoping to lessen U.S. reliance on foreign oil on Wednesday debuted two television ads that link gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles to terrorist funding. The ads mimic spots that link drug money to terrorism. One commercial features a child's voiceover and shows a man filling his gas tank and footage of terrorist training. The closing statement: "Oil money supports some terrible things. What kind of mileage does your SUV get?" The other ad shows people talking about their SUVs. One says, "My kids think it's cool." Another says, "I helped blow up a nightclub." The 30-second ads were created for The Detroit Project, a nonprofit launched by syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington. They will begin airing Sunday in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington and Detroit. "This campaign is not designed to demonize SUV owners," Huffington said. "We want to encourage customers to connect the dots and make socially responsible consumer choices." The ads were written and directed by Scott Burns, who was part of the creative team responsible for "Got Milk." They are intended as parodies, Burns said. The ads were turned down by several TV stations — WABC in New York, KABC and KCBS in Los Angeles and WDIV in Detroit, according to campaign publicists Fenton Communications. Huffington said the stations found them "controversial." The ads will air on "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press" on Sunday. The Detroit Project was created by Americans for Fuel Efficient Cars, a group co-founded by Huffington, film producer Lawrence Bender, environmental activist Laurie David, and movie and TV agent Ari Emanuel. The ads — which cost $50,000 to make and $175,000 for air time — were paid for through donations. Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, criticized the ads as "elitist nonsense." The institute is a business lobby that favors a nongovernment approach to regulatory issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 "The 30-second ads were created for The Detroit Project, a nonprofit launched by syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington. They will begin airing Sunday in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington and Detroit." I wonder what type of cars these people drive? How much fuel do they consume each time they take a jet somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 Sean Hannity BLASTED Huffington for this idiocy. He asked her if she had ever flown in a private jet and she said "yes, but it was already going to be flying, so I didnt harm anyone" He then asked her how big her house was and how much fuel was used to heat/cool it. She got mad and wouldn't respond, but later Seans staff found out it was a 11k SQFT house. Also, they took Norman Lear to town for his support of this idiocy. He has 28 cars and a single building to store them all. Im sure these LimoLibs are helping out the terrorist a bit more than the soccer moms dont you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 The problem with liberals has always been that they want others to live to a standard they refuse to live to themselves. These people would be much more persuasive if they were living in a downtown high rise, not owning a car or a lawnmower or anything else, and simply living by mass transit. But, these people are born hypocrits. The want the perks and now that they have them they want to condem you for wanting them or having them too. The reason the liberal message is so lost in this country is because you merely look at the person you're speaking to and you know they don't actually believe their own views because they would live by them first, before demanding you do. It's sad. What's also interesting is that only 20 percent of our nation's fuel for automobiles comes from foreign countries. And, none of it would have to come from other nation's if the left would let us use our own . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted January 9, 2003 Author Share Posted January 9, 2003 This is obviously a case where both sides are correct. It is correct that drive gas-guzzling vehicles consumes oil faster, which is a problem by itself (oil being a non-renewable resource) and a problem in that it further injects U.S. interests within the explosive Middle East, which has enough problems on the religious/territory front. (The argument that U.S. oil consumption directly funds terrorism is specious, since the U.S. is not the only customer for Arab oil.) But it is also correct that the argument is being advanced in the case of this commercial by elitist hypocrites who are doing one thing and saying another thing. It's unfortunate that a good argument is being sabotaged in this way, but that doesn't by itself contradict the argument. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, yet was also the Founding Father who injected the philosophy that "all men are created equal" into our Declaration of Independence. Further Jefferson clauses explicitly denouncing the slave trade were struck from the Declaration by slave owners who were not hypocrites. In this case, being a hypocrite was a step up from simply being evil and proud of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 ASF, We aren't intertwined with the Middle East any more, or less, by SUVs. Again, only 20 percent of oil used for gas in this country comes from the Middle East. If anything, we are forced to deal with the Middle East because the wackos won't let us get to our own oil. So, if you're looking for the root cause to why we have to deal with the Middle East, look no further than the far left, and join us in demanding the U.S. be able to access it's own oil to remove any need for Middle Eastern oil. Are you ready to do that? If you are not ready to do that, then you simply aren't smart enough to figure out why the Middle East is involved at all. Be smarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 art....although the lifestyles of rich & famous liberals are not germane to the core arguments over what foreign policy or domestic energy policy ought to be....you are precisely right in targeting the hypocrisy of these frauds; and that this hypocisy is reason enough not to take these people seriously. too bad there isn't more information available to turn the public eye on these folks!!! ted danson is a staunch environmentalist...who happened to own a private jet at one time and saw himself as a good neighbor by flying friends "in need" around. streisand was/is by all accounts notorious for the meticulousness and excess in her desires for the "atmospherics" when on the set (such as flowers by the hundreds which are replaced often). sting flies down to brazil for a concert to promote world awareness of the amazon - how's the energy generated for the concert? how do patrons get to the concert? ted kennedy, reknowned environmentalist, obviously has a track record with cars & boats, has to get from MA to DC and back somehow!!!! Gee...how does Nancy Pelosi travel to/from CA to talk to her constituents? Maxine Waters ever travel for private purposes on the public dole? ever wonder about zoning laws in CA and how conventiently low income housing projects never find themsleves located next to...I don't know...Martin Sheen's home or Meatheads'? i short......there's a huge gap between the preaching and the practice. and this is why fewer folks take liberals seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.