DEMISE OF THE S.U.V!!! (Language Warning)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I call that hypocritical sniveling

Absolutely not... Dems *CAN'T* be hypocrites..don't you remember all the other threads?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Absolutely not... Dems *CAN'T* be hypocrites..don't you remember all the other threads?

Some may be.. but the Republicans in teh current Administration and their dead ender followers took it to new highs

[orribolollie 0]

Just because some have personal opinions that would require additional, (subjective, PC motivated, petty, arbitrary punishing) fines/fees of owners of low mileage cars. Even though they likely already pay more in vehicle price, taxes, operation and maintenance........

eh?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

eh?

don't trouble yourself on this one, it responds to a position that's less about the environment or voluntary purchases but more about theories concerning economic parity and levels of property redistribution

I'll try to keep the subtext conversations better hidden.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Even though they likely already pay more in vehicle price, taxes, operation and maintenance........

I agree with Kallend; currently the costs are not properly allocated.

For example, national and regional demand for oil is increased unnecessarily by those who drive large SUVs when smaller, more fuel efficient cars would work fine. That increased demand raises everyone's fuel costs, not just the costs of the SUV owners. That's not proper cost allocation.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

It's amazing just how much people disregard supply and demand in lieu of an emotional response to a natural condition.

I'd like to see an "objective" assessment of allocating the costs you are complaining about. Unfortunately, objectivity is impossible here. And, as the true reason for the re-distribution comes to the forefront, it will then become completely complicated as people try to rationalize a progressive fee structure based on personal wealth.

Then, once the impossible is accomplished, I'd like to then see how people try to do that for everything bought or purchased in the world.

This is the real agenda of these types of comments.

This isn't about conservation in any way, it's about creating another method/justification of wealth redistribution. At least people should be honest about it. Their real goal is to have everything in the market prorated on cost to the buyer's net worth.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>Unfortunately, objectivity is impossible here.

It is indeed difficult here. All too often, instead of talking about the issue in the thread, people think that any comment is 'creating another method/justification of wealth redistribution' and thus counterattack with their pet economic theory. Then someone mentions Bush.

[wmw999 2,602]

Quote

Then someone mentions Bush.

And let's not forget that Clinton got a blowjob, and lied about it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It's amazing just how much people disregard supply and demand in lieu of an emotional response to a natural condition.

I'd like to see an "objective" assessment of allocating the costs you are complaining about. Unfortunately, objectivity is impossible here. And, as the true reason for the re-distribution comes to the forefront, it will then become completely complicated as people try to rationalize a progressive fee structure based on personal wealth.

Then, once the impossible is accomplished, I'd like to then see how people try to do that for everything bought or purchased in the world.

This is the real agenda of these types of comments.

This isn't about conservation in any way, it's about creating another method/justification of wealth redistribution. At least people should be honest about it. Their real goal is to have everything in the market prorated on cost to the buyer's net worth.

The agenda of my comments was that a certain post by Kallend seems to be often quoted out of context in order to make him look hypocritical.

If you don't see the objectivity of my example, then perhaps you didn't understand it. It certainly does not disregard supply and demand. Surely you understand increased usage results in increased demand? Certainly you wouldn't deny that the price per gallon of (road use) fuel at the pump in the US is not dependent upon the type of vehicle it is being pumped into?

Properly allocating costs is not about wealth redistribution. Well, it is sort of. It's about me not not being penalized at the pump for someone else's decision to drive a larger vehicle than necessary.

I don't like subsidizing the ramifications of others' poor choices. However, in some cases it is a necessary evil. This is not one of those cases.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[steveorino 7]

Those who wish to impose their own agendas on others whether to be through taxes or legislation, never ceases to amaze me.

steveOrino

[billvon 3,132]

>Those who wish to impose their own agendas on othres, whether to
>be through taxes or legislation, never ceases to amaze me.

I think you agree with many "agendas" that have been imposed on others by legislation. The laws against theft or fraud for example.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

>Those who wish to impose their own agendas on othres, whether to
>be through taxes or legislation, never ceases to amaze me.

I think you agree with many "agendas" that have been imposed on others by legislation. The laws against theft or fraud for example.

I was referring to those who wish to impose their "personal" agenda, whether that be from religous wackos, economical wackos or enviornmental wackos

steveOrino

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Those who wish to impose their own agendas on others whether to be through taxes or legislation, never ceases to amaze me.

Are you saying that I shouldn't be angry about subsidizing someone else's unnecessary operating costs for an SUV?

The status quo is that someone else's agenda is being imposed on me. I would like to see that stopped. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to support such injustices.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Those who wish to impose their own agendas on others whether to be through taxes or legislation, never ceases to amaze me.

Are you saying that I shouldn't be angry about subsidizing someone else's unnecessary operating costs for an SUV?

I guess you can get your panties in a wad over anything you'd like.

However, it seems even sillier if you were the one who stated, "Mind your own business and I'll mind mine!: and "Don't tell me what car to drive!"

But you're not the one .. at least not on a public forum.

steveOrino

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Are you saying that I shouldn't be angry about subsidizing someone else's unnecessary operating costs for an SUV?

I'm saying that this statement is a huge stretch. If we all paid x-dollars per week to drive any way we want to, then maybe you'd have a case. But in our economy, those that buy twice as much gas as you currently pay twice as much as you.

If I drove 100,000 miles per week just for the hell of it and used a very fuel efficient car, I'd still use more gas than any SUV driven normally.

In that scenario, are you also subsidizing my unnecessary operating costs? Would you promote legislation that controls where and how much I travel to satisfy your sense of fairness? You want to force people to live within walking distance of work? Perhaps only allow me to visit my relatives out of state 2 times per year? 3 times?

What else in my personal choices would you curtail?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>I was referring to those who wish to impose their "personal" agenda,
>whether that be from religous wackos . . .

There's a federally funded and operated cross on a hilltop near me. In less extreme examples, US government offices are closed on the Sabbath; even hindus, muslims and atheist employees are forced to observe that.

>economical wackos . . . .

We have laws against monopolies, which restrict free capitalism so some "economic wackos" can "impose their will" on others. But I think it's a good law overall.

>or enviornmental wackos

In 1948 20 people died in Donora in a single day from air pollution. In the 1970's my wife's parents were told to move out of LA by their doctor because the air was so bad. That doesn't happen as much today because of those "environmental wackos imposing their agenda on others." But again, I think the EPA was a good idea overall.

Laws ARE people imposing their will on others. That's how they work. They are not inherently evil, but must be created and applied with foresight and intelligence.

[steveorino 7]

You're pissing in the wrong pot. I don't push to legislate morality. I simply see no reason to tax a man's choice in vehicle.

Rehma said it much better than I in the post above yours.

steveOrino

[billvon 3,132]

>I simply see no reason to tax a man's choice in vehicle.

I don't either. Just pointing out that "pushing to legislate morality" is pretty much what lawmakers do no matter what the law concerns - and sometimes good laws come out of that process.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

However, it seems even sillier if you were the one who stated, "Mind your own business and I'll mind mine!: and "Don't tell me what car to drive!"

If you had quoted in context, and not cherry picked a particular sentence for dramatic effect, it would not seem silly at all. What would be the fun in that, though, when one can instead misrepresent what a man says in an effort to make oneself appear/feel morally superior?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

However, it seems even sillier if you were the one who stated, "Mind your own business and I'll mind mine!: and "Don't tell me what car to drive!"

If you had quoted in context, and not cherry picked a particular sentence for dramatic effect, it would not seem silly at all. What would be the fun in that, though, when one can instead misrepresent what a man says in an effort to make oneself appear/feel morally superior?

Here is is post about not telling him which car to drive.

Don't tell me what kind of car to drive. Since oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel.


Let's see if I cherry picked it.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2523409;search_string=mind%20your%20own%20business;#2523409

steveOrino

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>I was referring to those who wish to impose their "personal" agenda,
>whether that be from religous wackos . . .

There's a federally funded and operated cross on a hilltop near me.

There's a federally operated cross near you? Could you provide a link?

Regarding the topic of governmental intervention, I think it comes down to moderation. Should the government implement legislation to ensure safe food, air and water? I definitely think so.

Should they ban transfats? How about the effort in Belmont, CA to prohibit smoking everywhere except in (detacted) single family homes? Fifteen years ago, smoking was legal just about everywhere. Now they're tring to make it illegal to smoke in a closed apartment. Talk about your slippery slope.

Anyone else have territorial Canada geese crapping all over your neighborhood? There is no reason why these pests deserve endangered species status!!!

I may be wrong, but I think Kallend made some posts a month or so ago about something along the lines of issuing fines of $500.00 to SUV owners, driving alone in the city and charging all SUV owners something like 9$/gal for gas. It seemed a bit EXTREME.

Regarding government control... it's about moderation and the ability to take away those controls. That second part is the real kicker.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

when one can instead misrepresent what a man says in an effort to make oneself appear/feel morally superior?

really? - why can't Kallend honestly feel his comments are consistent while Steveorino honestly considers them not to be? Especially considering the subjective nature of the qualification that you and Kallend promote.....

It's kind of silly that just because you and Steveorino disagree, that you automatically default to qualifying his poistion as self serving rather than an honest position.

(kind of like me implying you and Kallend have a wealth redistribution intent and not a real enviro concern, or Billvon saying my opinion on that redistribution is just my 'pet' theory today.......) c'mon, everybody is doing it except Steveorino......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Right now the costs of SUV (and other vehicle) ownership are NOT properly allocated.

Seems demand and supply are doing their jobs just fine.

Just because some have personal opinions that would require additional, (subjective, PC motivated, petty, arbitrary punishing) fines/fees of owners of low mileage cars. Even though they likely already pay more in vehicle price, taxes, operation and maintenance........

I disagree. What component of the cost of dealing with global warming is reflected in taxes on motor vehicles? What component of the cost of congestion in cities is dealt with by taxes on motor vehicles? What component of the cost of building and repairing roads is covered by taxes on motor vehicles? Be aware that road damage goes as the cube of axle loading, so a 6000 pound SUV does 8 times the damage as a 3000 pound car. Do SUV drivers in cities pay 8 times as much towards road maintenance?

Supply and demand only work when prices accurately reflect actual costs.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you saying that I shouldn't be angry about subsidizing someone else's unnecessary operating costs for an SUV?

I'm saying that this statement is a huge stretch. If we all paid x-dollars per week to drive any way we want to, then maybe you'd have a case. But in our economy, those that buy twice as much gas as you currently pay twice as much as you.

Evidently, you missed my point. If people drive SUVs when more fuel efficient cars will work as well, it increases demand so that the cost of fuel increases per gallon. As long as I have to pay this increased cost per gallon, then I am subsidizing the costs of others driving SUVs.

Quote

If I drove 100,000 miles per week just for the hell of it and used a very fuel efficient car, I'd still use more gas than any SUV driven normally.

In that scenario, are you also subsidizing my unnecessary operating costs? Would you promote legislation that controls where and how much I travel to satisfy your sense of fairness? You want to force people to live within walking distance of work? Perhaps only allow me to visit my relatives out of state 2 times per year? 3 times?

If you drive your fuel efficient car 100,000 miles a week, assuming you didn't stop to eat sleep or sh!t, you would be traveling at at nearly 600 miles per hour. I think there is already legislation in place to circumvent such actions.

Quote

What else in my personal choices would you curtail?

I'm not trying to curtail your choices. I merely believe that one should be responsible for one's own actions. If you want to drive an SUV, fine. But I think it is only fair that you pay for the costs associated with your decision.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

However, it seems even sillier if you were the one who stated, "Mind your own business and I'll mind mine!: and "Don't tell me what car to drive!"

If you had quoted in context, and not cherry picked a particular sentence for dramatic effect, it would not seem silly at all. What would be the fun in that, though, when one can instead misrepresent what a man says in an effort to make oneself appear/feel morally superior?

Here is is post about not telling him which car to drive.

Don't tell me what kind of car to drive. Since oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel.


Let's see if I cherry picked it.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2523409;search_string=mind%20your%20own%20business;#2523409

I stand by that. When the price of driving accurately reflects the total cost to the planet and the community, supply and demand will take care of it. Right now that is not the case, so I can be pissed off by people driving solo in congested city traffic in their Lincoln Navigators.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.