Edwards tells Americans they should give up their SUV's... - Page 3

Thorgrim · 08-30-2007, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

How about him not wanting me to have the option of owning an SUV because of energy yet he lives in an almost 30,000 square foot home? Does he need a house that is 10 times larger than the average house for fund raising?

Hey, he can do and live where ever he wants. But when he tells ME that I should not be allowed the choice to drive what I want but thinks he is above it, fuck him. And anyone that agrees with him is just a leg humper that is unwilling to take off their political blinders.

He didn't say you weren't allowed to drive an SUV

Also, you can build a car, have it barely meet standards, and have it pass the laws for driving, yet you can build a car and have it just fail standards, and it would be illegal to drive...how come you never complain about that?

Some cars are illegal to drive on the roads, and Edwards didn't say the category of SUVs would be added to that list

Stylerod · 08-30-2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Also, you can build a car, have it barely meet standards, and have it pass the laws for driving, yet you can build a car and have it just fail standards, and it would be illegal to drive...how come you never complain about that?

Say what?

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He didn't say you weren't allowed to drive an SUV

Good thing, or he would have been stuck the other day!

thomez · 08-30-2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I drive a >4,000lb 4Runner that come from the factory (20 years ago) with 108 hp

Max tow capacity is apparently 3500lbs as well, but I'm not going to test that.

sounds like a 22RE

Linzyhop · 08-31-2007, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Hey, he can do and live where ever he wants. But when he tells ME that I should not be allowed the choice to drive what I want but thinks he is above it, fuck him. And anyone that agrees with him is just a leg humper that is unwilling to take off their political blinders.

my political blinders? um. i'm independent. I'm not voting for him, i'm actually closer to voting for McCain if he is still in it.... doesn't mean I can't agree with him.

blinders were never on, but thanks for stopping by.

Stylerod · 08-31-2007, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

my political blinders? um. i'm independent. I'm not voting for him, i'm actually closer to voting for McCain if he is still in it.... doesn't mean I can't agree with him.

blinders were never on, but thanks for stopping by.

I actually wasn't talking about you. It was more directed to other people that will never, ever disagree with anyone in their party.

IminWonderland · 08-31-2007, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I know. I have to do that from time to time. There really isn't much that can be said here except admit he needs to shut up about this stuff until he can lead by example. But he never was much of a leader. God knows why he is running for president.

You could say alot of the same about the GOP.

You could say the same about the President and his cabinet.

Scrum is right, get on Edwards balls for the environment, but not on Bush's balls about being a soldier?

OK....

IminWonderland · 08-31-2007, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Oh, great idea!

Minivan Comparison Test

Observed MPG

Dodge Grand Caravan 16.2 mpg

Honda Odyssey 16.2 mpg

Pontiac Montana 16.6 mpg

Toyota Sienna 15.2 mpg

The full sized Ford Explorer I rented averaged 15.5 when I rented it. And it was a HUGE 4WD.

Why do you respond if you are going to ignore half my post?

Is not the Minivan a better buy for emissions than SUV's? As far as I know, they are. And the MPG is STILL better than comparable passenger vehicles.

My Van seats 7, which was why I got it. So if you want to compare, you are going to have to go bigger than a Ford Explorer to make your point. I believe my sisters Excursion of the same year as my car gets 11.

IminWonderland · 08-31-2007, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

As President he'd force every vehicle's emission standard to that of a regular sedan like an Accord? (As he had control over the EPA he'd have some authority over that area if elected)

That would totally screw over our entire trucking transportation industry

link?

I think it's a great goal for us to have as consumers that we wouldn't buy a vehicle unless the mileage was a certain standard.

We have been waiting for about 20 years for some advances, and they have come few and far between. Apparently this industry needs help, and unfortunatley, this is the choices they are becoming left with.

For him to make a law that says in 10 years, all new vehicles must have at least 25 mpg (which isn't even that great, if you ask me), I think that it would end up being positive. I have a hard time believing that The Big Three are going to just throw their hands up and give up their industry. That claim is made everytime something is going to get legistlated in the industry, and so far I don't see them going out of business.

But I do see European and Asian automakers being more innovative. American autocompanies are going to start having to put up or they are going to go out of business anyways.

This is not 1912, we aren't driving Model T's. I don't believe them that they can not mass market a vehicle that can't use complete alternative fuel with close to no emissions to the public.

Maybe if they stop with the insanity with Car Dealerships, and the whole bullshit process they could just sell them for what they really cost.

IminWonderland · 08-31-2007, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

In the Bush administration, when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.

It's true.

Go shopping. Buy an Escalade. It will make everything better. Because as long as we feel fabulous in our cars, our country will be ok!

IminWonderland · 08-31-2007, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So he made an open statement that SUVs (not trucks) should be pushed to get sedan emissions...and he'd help such a bill get along in the future as we move to be more environmentally friendly

And this is what scares everyone?

Pretty much.

I have a feeling if he could buy an SUV like vehicle with no emissions, he would do it.

I wonder who could make such a fantastic vehicle.....maybe the Japanese?

Stylerod · 08-31-2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

You could say alot of the same about the GOP.

You could say the same about the President and his cabinet.

Scrum is right, get on Edwards balls for the environment, but not on Bush's balls about being a soldier?

OK....

He was a soldier

Fighter Pilot to be exact.

IminWonderland · 08-31-2007, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He was a soldier Fighter Pilot to be exact.

Yeah....and I'm Sylvia Plath.

There is a difference between being in the same opportunity as someone, and then actually being that person.

garbagemanlb · 08-31-2007, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

He was a soldier Fighter Pilot to be exact.

A brave one at that.

Champagne unit.

Stylerod · 08-31-2007, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Yeah....and I'm Sylvia Plath.

There is a difference between being in the same opportunity as someone, and then actually being that person.

Hi Sylvia.

I'm just correcting you. If you think people who serve in the national guard are losers, well, that's your opinion.

DosEquis · 08-31-2007, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Hi Sylvia.

I'm just correcting you. If you think people who serve in the national guard are losers, well, that's your opinion.

Nice 'sweeping generalization' as the press secretary would describe it. You know the back story behind his national guard service as much as anyone else here. He was setup by his daddy and did it to avoid service in vietnam. The irony is people give him credit for being a soldier, a fighter pilot, a man who supports the troops, a John Mclane vs Hans Gruber yippee-ki-yay motherfucker kind of guy in a cowboy hat... when he and his entire administration avoided the bugle call of their country during vietnam. True patriots.

Both parties can be hypocritical. John Edwards has a big ass house and has a large carbon footprint, while he preaches that we should fix it as a nation.

Republicans preach small government, but have done the opposite. Republicans speak out against homosex, while they try to pay for blow jobs and play footsy in public shitters.
Republicans 'support the troops' while Walter Reed suffers...while Cheney recognized there would be a 'quagmire' and did nothing to prepare for it...while they avoided serving themselves.

..and on and on..

Its fair to attack John Edwards on the issue in regards to his home and not practicing what he preaches...but why don't you do the same for your side of the isle.

thomez · 08-31-2007, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

This is not 1912, we aren't driving Model T's. I don't believe them that they can not mass market a vehicle that can't use complete alternative fuel with close to no emissions to the public.

Running on what? Water? Electric? Hydrogen? Ethanol?

I do not mean this to be personally insulting, but the zero-emissions automobile is a pie-in-the-sky dream....

Stylerod · 08-31-2007, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Nice 'sweeping generalization' as the press secretary would describe it. You know the back story behind his national guard service as much as anyone else here. He was setup by his daddy and did it to avoid service in vietnam. The irony is people give him credit for being a soldier, a fighter pilot, a man who supports the troops, a John Mclane vs Hans Gruber yippee-ki-yay motherfucker kind of guy in a cowboy hat... when he and his entire administration avoided the bugle call of their country during vietnam. True patriots.

Both parties can be hypocritical. John Edwards has a big ass house and has a large carbon footprint, while he preaches that we should fix it as a nation.

Republicans preach small government, but have done the opposite. Republicans speak out against homosex, while they try to pay for blow jobs and play footsy in public shitters.
Republicans 'support the troops' while Walter Reed suffers...while Cheney recognized there would be a 'quagmire' and did nothing to prepare for it...while they avoided serving themselves.

..and on and on..

Its fair to attack John Edwards on the issue in regards to his home and not practicing what he preaches...but why don't you do the same for your side of the isle.

I speak out plenty of times against my side of the isle. I just created a thread today where I speak out against them.

Bush and the repubs made government bigger and that pisses me off. You'd think Democrats would love it.

Repubs are not against homosex, which you know, just homo marriage. Which I don't agree with but also feel there needs to be rules before is changed.

You talking about two people that did stupid things is ignorant. There are plenty of Democrats that did stupid things and are in trouble. You aren't going to mention them? (imagine!)

Walter Reed is fucked up and looks like it's been fucked up for a long time. It's finally getting the support that is needed. Democrats could have stepped up and fixed things sooner but didn't. Why not? So they could blame Republicans?

Since this is a thread about Edwards, then we need to discuss Edwards. Is it impossible to say something negative about a Democrat without saying "Well republicans are worse!"? Seems childish.

IminWonderland · 09-01-2007, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

Running on what? Water? Electric? Hydrogen? Ethanol?

I do not mean this to be personally insulting, but the zero-emissions automobile is a pie-in-the-sky dream....

Do you think it will ever happen?