http://www.ariannaonline.com/suv/

From their website, "Tell Detroit their gas-guzzlers help terrorists buy guns."

Making the link between the two is a bit far fetched to me.

It never ends..the stupidity of some never ceases. Just wait I'm sure there will be a dozen web pages supporting this and a bunch of fat, no life, internet geeks believeing everty bit of it as the truth. And then you will get even MORE web pages.

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

Their campaign is more than just web pages, they're going to start a national TV ad campaign soon.

So what about all the gas that cars use? If an SUV uses 10 more gallons a day than a car does, do the first 10 gallons a car uses not go to "fund terrorism" somehow? What about Tractor trailers? They use more gas than most commuter vehicles do. And what about the delivery trucks for the Post Office and UPS? Are we supposed to not ship packages because the gas used to deliver them will fund terrorism? This stupidity seems to have no end. Even more ignorant than the WWJD, What Would Jesus Drive campaign. Do these people realize how stupid the are making themselves look? If you are going to run a campaign, at least have the common sense to make sure your position makes sense.

I think the idea here is that cars, while they do use that first 10 gallons, do not use as much gas & oil as SUVs, and if less people drove sport utility vehicles, we wouldn't have to buy as much Middle Eastern oil (which is only 20% right now). I don't see a huge flaw in the logic there. I don't know that I would necessarily link this with terrorism, but I do see the logic.

I can understand the need for SUVs and commercial vehicles to be used in certain circumstances, but I don't understand the need for a soccer mom to be driving an oversized land yacht that takes up two spaces in the parking lot just to go to the grocery store when there are plenty of spacious, fuel efficient cars.

It's especially absurd when you consider that the vast majority of celebrities who support this ad campaign use either limousine service provided SUV's or stretch limos. Wow, those get awesome gas mileage!

I saw one of these ads last night. I thought it was really funny.

They were mocking the Drugs=Terrorism ads, which is where I found the humor (probably stemming from my disgust at those drug commercials. Which, by the way, can be debated here: Drugs=Terror?, What's the connection?).

I don't think they will be very effective, though. I think it is a mistake to target regular civilians when there are SO many corporate interests that use FAR more oil and gas products than an individual could use in their lifetime. Additionally, corporations have much more access to implementing R&D on more efficient transportation methods than any single person.

Funny ads. Wrong target.

I agree that many people drive SUV's when they truly do not have to. I used to have a truck and I drive 35 miles each way to work. I traded it in for a Nissan Sentra that gets over 40 mpg, but that was basically due to cost. We also have a Nissan Xterra which we need to haul our kids (2 labs) to the vet and park and such, but my wife drives that because she only has to drive 10 miles round trip to work. I guess common sense prevails, and also helps to conserve energy. My problem with the ads is they make too broad a generalization. Jaime basically reiterated my point about UPS and Post Office trucks, where do you draw the line? There are more fuel efficient cars out there, but it seems that the majority of Americans (right or wrong) are really not interested in them. I for one feel that more diesel engines should be made available in cars and trucks. Diesels get much higher mileage and are far far cleaner than they ever have been. And plus diesels last much longer than gas engines! My father in law has a big Dodge Turbo Diesel truck for his farm, and it gets over 20 mpg! I don't think fuel cells are the answer either, but that is another thread in iteself.

I can agree with that, and just like the drugs=terror ads, I think that this is more manipulation than anything. Americans are suffering from the psychological effects of 9-11, which is being perpetuated by the media on a daily basis, and these other organizations are picking up on the fact that they can use the fear to promote their own agendas.

Don't know about your state, but in mine, they just enacted a tax on hybrids.

You know, those cars that use 50% gas and 50% electricity?

Heh, why the tax? Our lawmakers think that owners of those cars, don't pay their fair share of the gas tax....lol

kinda defeats the purpose if you ask me...whats the point of having a fuel efficient car now? hehe

--cheers

That could very well be pressure from big automakers to politicians to sway peoiple away from hybrid vehicles.
You know what kind of pressure I mean $$$.

Yep. Arianna Huffington herself has made the comparison in several columns. I think the whole campaign is a striking bit of satire - though I find the target a bit more appropriate than some here.

Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that anybody needs an SUV to haul a couple of kids around. My parents did perfectly well with a car when I was growing up, as do many others. Whatever happened to the nice, small, fuel efficient station wagon?

As funny as the ads are, they really do hit home. It isn't that any individual uses a large amount of petroleum, it is that collectively, the millions of SUV's on the road use far more than an equivalent number of smaller cars, and serve to further increase our dependance on foreign oil. Not to mention that many of the people driving them can barely handle a car, let alone a larger vehicle like that, but that sounds like another thread.

Stefan: True. You don't NEED an SUV to haul around a couple kids in. However, many people, out where I live, do ... in fact.... NEED an SUV or large 4x4 truck to survive.

I sometimes think your opinion of this issue is related to where you live. Take for instance, Stefan.... you live in the great state of MA. Granted, it's flat, very urban, etc etc. (correct me if I'm wrong, i've only been there once myself...years ago.)

Please note, I am in no way tearing down your opinion. I'm just making an observation based on what I know. It's a theroy of mine...

I am from Oregon however.... which is largely Rural, and the whole eastern side of the state is mountainous. If you live on a mountain, at 5000 feet elevation, a Geo Metro will NOT work for you 50% of the year. Snow plows only go in town...and for a mile or two out...but not much further....

SUV's and large P/U's are also common on farms. they need something to haul the horses or cattle around.

Even in the city, where I am, MANY have SUV's or trucks to help get them up to the ski resorts. We have 3-4 major ski resorts where I live, all within 2 hours. Many more if you drive further.

It's true that a Electric car would make it up the mountain, but safety is a big concern...and fact is...those cars are NOT safe in snow...even with chains.

*********************

Ok, off soapbox and on topic.

I find it interesting that the author says "you buy gas to put in your large SUV, you buy it from terrorists" If thats true, then we're ALL guilty of funding terrorism...some just more than others. I suppose the author of that article rides a horse and wagon into work eh? I wonder what kind of vehicle she drives....

Furthermore, isn't that calling everyone from the middle east a terrorist? what a racist POV if you ask me. Not everyone over there is a terrorist. In fact, most are not. Just the most outspoken ones

I coudl be wrong. I coudln't even make it through the whole article.... was a lousy excuse for journalism.... :/

--cheers

Digital Patriot, I grew up in the Rocky Mountains, and you don't really need an oversized SUV to survive there. In fact, many SUVs are too top heavy to handle the curves well. You're correct that a small geo-metro isn't going to do the trick, but there are other alternatives out there that don't guzzle as much gas. As far as farming is concerned, that fits more under the commercial category, and it makes sense that certain businesses are going to need larger vehicles to haul things.

I think this is as ridiculous as the drugs=terrorism commercials.

Knowing that we depend on so many other places for so many things, we are all supporting something 'bad' probably at least once a day.

Buy something 'Made in China'? Are you supporting mass abortions because of their one child rule? Never stopped people from buying their made in china american flags to hook on to whatever is available to show their patriotism.

I think something does need to be done to steer people away from gas guzzlers... certainly not taxing those who've paid their way around it with hybrids though!

I don't think this is it though... I think this campaign will just *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** people off or not matter at all. How many people do these guys believe will see their commercial/ads and immediately sell their hulking SUV for something efficient? NO ONE, that's how many.

DP: Massachusetts is flat??? When was the last time you were in western Massachusetts? And it snows here, too... Allot.

Speaking of the ridiculous connection between SUV owners and oil money to terrorists, I guess we all beter be reading by candlelight because some power plants use oil to make electricity.

And I guess we had all better shun plastic anything, since plastics are petroleum based.

Ya..I like the way she sold her SUV rather that having it destroyed.

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

MadMax, I came across a news report some days back that brought out a disturbing fact. The really huge SUVs are classified as light trucks, and therefore the purchasers are eligible for a $20,000 tax credit. The loophole comes from a law that was made to help small businesses buy light trucks. So, all you need to do is claim the truck as a business vehicle (not hard to do), and voila! Twenty G credit.

So the "spirit of the law" is violated, but the "letter of the law" is not. Rewording the law to make some sort of sense probably won't happen--and I wonder if the spirit was really there to begin with.

So for all those who think it is silly to correlate the purchases of massive SUVs and trucks as giving comfort and aid to the enemy (treason), how do you feel about subsidizing these purchases?

I would like some numbers--how many SUV buyers are claiming a $20,000 tax credit on their purchases? Show us something to indicate how widespread this practice is. Not that I don't believe you, of course. If this is an epidemic, I want to be properly outraged.

Author M., I remember reading, maybe 3 or 4 yrs ago, that this was going to happen. That these huge SUV's would be classified as trucks. I think the article stated that it would be an advantage to the exporter.

Now, everyone acts surprised and outraged! The government and car mfg. knew all along what would happen.

Madtown

Well, can't say I knew that but I'm surely not surprised.

The basic idea in this country is being penalized for trying to better oneself and one's environment. At least that is my current gripe.

This really is awful though, setting aside how many people know of and use this loophole, the fact that it exists is infuriating. Then turn around and burn people who are trying to make a difference by buying hybrid vehicles.

What is the incentive in this country to do better for ourselves and the environment? This is sad.

cyclone,

I really couldn't say how many people are taking advantage of the tax credit, however, if you can afford a $50-70,000 vehicle, then you can afford an excellent tax accountant. I would assume all the people who buy these vehicles are aware of the tax credit because the dealership would inform them--it's like getting a free factory rebate, and therefore, it is a selling point.

I also imagine some form of business needs to be set up, like sole proprietorship (easy) or S-corp (almost as easy). Now there may be some issues if your business doesn't turn a profit somehow. However, this too can be a fairly easy cover if you have good legal and accounting advice.

Maybe after April 15 there will be some numbers on how many folks took advantage of this tax break. I am assuming that everyone who can, will. The trouble will be determining how many of the businesses are legitimate and how many are fake tax dodges.

By targeting only SUVs, this organization immediately discredits itself.

How about Bentleys and Rolls Royces? They have to pay an excise tax because they are so fuel ineffecient. But are they necessary?

How about police cars? Let's encourage the police to turn their vehicles off when they run in to get their donuts. 5 officers per town, 5,000+ towns in the US... I'm willing to bet that at least 10,000 gallons of gas are wasted while police illegally leave their vehicles running while unattended.

What about semis? Is it ok to support terrorism as long as you are making a profit?

And how exactly do these folks get to work? It's ok for me to drive my 40 mile per gallon car 40 miles to get to work, but you'll burn in hell if you drive your 20 mile per gallon suv 20 miles to get to work.

Yet another example of extremism...

Mike

Mike--

Excellent point, one I've been trying to get a straight answer to (thus far unsuccessfully) by the shrill anti-SUV lobby. I drive an SUV, and I used 12 gallons of gas last week. My brother in law drives a Mercury Sable or something, and he drives 35 minutes each way to work every day--I KNOW he's using more gas than I am. You'll notice Arianna Huffington and her ilk aren't saying everyone should use less gas, or that everyone should limit themselves to x gallons a week--that might actually accomplish something. It's pointless anyway, because by the time we run out of gas (which will be never) we'll have developed perfectly useful alternatives, and the people squawking about oil and SUVs will be squawking over something else, as is their way.

I really have to wonder how many of the people criticizing oil policy and SUVs are themselves driving hybrid or high mpg vehicles themselves? I'd bet very few--it's much easier to criticize than to put one's money where one's mouth is.

I disagree. I created a thread to discuss if our oil will ever run out.

Thanks, I checked it out and commented. As Mike put it so well, if we find/invent a viable energy alternative, there would be no need for oil, and so it would, in fact, never run out. I believe we will develop such a fuel source--no reason to think otherwise.

Maybe these people should be targeting the real terrorists - the environmentalists.

If I'm correct, we purchased Alaska for its natural resources, not as a wildlife refuge.

And if I'm also correct, nearly all new offshore oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has ended as a result of the environmentalists. They claim it is too obtrusive to see an oil rig way way way way off on the horizon from their 4th floor luxury deck.

These environmentalists are forcing us to purchase foreign oil. By this group's logic, they must terrorists.

So when you contribute to an environmental organization, remember, you are indirectly supporting the murder of Americans.

Mike

Mike: You're turning into a real laff riot. Have you considered stand-up? I hear there are lots of openings in Borneo.

But I think you're just underlining Ms. Huffington's point: it's just as ridiculous to correlate recreational drug use and terror as it is to correlate SUV use (or environmental concern) and terror. We should stop worrying so much about what might fund terror and start addressing what causes terror.