You're right man, I totally chose for the house my parents bought when I was 12 to be 20+ miles away from a job I'd get 9 years later.


Totally my fault, my bad

 

Perhaps not, but you are choosing to stay

 

thats actually a whole different story, but yes, i am choosing to stay, because i'm needed.

Ah well

he can still DIAF tho.

 

Nobody should be forcing anybody to drive something they don't wanna. Thats a given. Its a free country.

Just treat all non-commercial passenger vehicles the same regardless of weight (if anything the weight should cost ya, not help ya). And rather than providing the government incentive to use gas taxation as just a new form of revenue to blow on some special interest group, simply set up a "balanced budget" where you tax the extreme gas guzzlers (including SUVs) as is already done and distribute that to the fuel misers (including motorcycles and regardless if hybrid or not) w/ the simple stipulation that they be insured as primary vehicles. Normal peeps aren't affected, but those that are WAY out there get slapped on the wrists while the dude driving a 75mpg Ninja 250 gets a little pat on the back for doing his part to reduce our dependence on those parts of the world that hate us and that we don't particularly like either.

While we're at it, how about increasing taxation based on how many kids you choose to have, or provide school cost refunds to those couples that choose not to have children. I was just watching discovery channel about some ******* honky that had SIXTEEN kids... SIXTEEN!!!! And rather than paying 16 times more than me in taxes to send all those kids to school and what not for 18 years, they are likely paying LESS than me because those can all be declared as dependents. Talk about socially irresponsible... and we subsidize it. :bang:

 

Let's see, if I could have an SUV and a boat or an SUV and a small car but not an SUV, small car and a boat, you feel I should not have anything but the small car? That is essentially what you are saying. Get over it.

I'm saying, as is everybody else who's brought up the point... that having a small car for commuting instead of using the SUV is actually cost effective. If you drive any kind of distance with the truck, the fuel you're wasting could pay for a car.

But you've missed that point for like the 3rd time.

There is damage being done to the environment that goes WAY beyond OIL. Reread my posts and show me where I was only speaking about oil. The elimination of forests and natural vegitation has far reaching implications. Why aren't you concerned about that? Have you ever heard of Red Tide? Their are scientests who are linking it to runoffs from factories feeding into the ocean/gulf. Who's head is in the sand?

So basically you're saying "There's lots of things wrong in the world besides just fuel consumption, and I can't fix it so... screw it. We're doomed, I might as well enjoy things while I can."

That's one of the attitudes I'm reeling against.

I'm not talking about the energy used to build roads and houses, I'm talking about the impact and damage to the environment as a whole. Also, there are scientests that discount the theory of emissions and global warming anyway. Who's right? Nobody really knows for sure.

Again, back to: We don't really know for sure, but we're betting on the fate of the planet, the risk is too great.

Man has survived both the Ice Age and meteor collisions so what was your point?

Man didn't survive either of them. Man wasn't around. Man will die if it happens again.

We are not fighting in Iraq to protect our supply of oil. That is your opinion and is not supported by anything official. It's a war on Terrorism not oil.

No, actually Canada is fighting the terrorists in Afganistan. No terrorists came from Iraq. You guys asked us to take over in that theater so you could go after the oil supply, since we already have enough of our own.

Also, the US accounts for 25% of the world oil consumption. The biggest rise in consumption is coming from Asia.

Ok, the numbers are in and around there... At least Asian countries are trying hard to reduce oil usage. They have stricter fuel economy requirements, despite having less technology to accomplish it.

Finally, considering that you live in Canada and don't contribute to the US economy, your opinion on what Americans should pay for gas means very little to me.

Don't contribute? Um, you know we supply a huge amount of your oil... technically we could decide how much you pay.

We contribute in many other ways. Your self centered views prevent you from seeing that. The two economies are intimately linked.

Ok mr commie pinko.

I knew it wouldn't be long before McCarthyism reared it's head. "Everybody who disagrees with us is a Commie!"

Go with that, it's a really intelligent argument to make.

Just treat all non-commercial passenger vehicles the same regardless of weight (if anything the weight should cost ya, not help ya). And rather than providing the government incentive to use gas taxation as just a new form of revenue to blow on some special interest group, simply set up a "balanced budget" where you tax the extreme gas guzzlers (including SUVs) as is already done and distribute that to the fuel misers (including motorcycles and regardless if hybrid or not) w/ the simple stipulation that they be insured as primary vehicles. Normal peeps aren't affected, but those that are WAY out there get slapped on the wrists while the dude driving a 75mpg Ninja 250 gets a little pat on the back for doing his part to reduce our dependence on those parts of the world that hate us and that we don't particularly like either.

That's exactly what I've proposed for a long time. Tax gas to $5/gal, then cut everybody a refund based on driving an average car an average distance. Those who continue to waste fuel get taxed, those who are efficient, save money.

While we're at it, how about increasing taxation based on how many kids you choose to have, or provide school cost refunds to those couples that choose not to have children. I was just watching discovery channel about some ******* honky that had SIXTEEN kids... SIXTEEN!!!! And rather than paying 16 times more than me in taxes to send all those kids to school and what not for 18 years, they are likely paying LESS than me because those can all be declared as dependents. Talk about socially irresponsible... and we subsidize it.

The population must grow for the economy to keep growing. The economy must grow to avoid being left behind by the rest of the world. Couples must be encouraged to have kids, not discouraged because of the costs. Those kids will pay you back when you're old, because they will pay taxes then, and support you in old age by funding the government pension plan you are drawing from. They might also be the same kids who go to war for you, protect you from crime, or heal your wounds.

If people stopped having kids because you taxed them, the economy would crumble in about 20-30 years. You would suffer in the end.

 

Wow P51 one of my heroes, but I must dissagree about the population thing. You can offset the growth with effeciency of operations.. the earth is only about 24k around. Its really crowded with multi billions of people

 

I'm saying, as is everybody else who's brought up the point... that having a small car for commuting instead of using the SUV is actually cost effective. If you drive any kind of distance with the truck, the fuel you're wasting could pay for a car.

But you've missed that point for like the 3rd time.

And I'm saying that your logic is flawed and would require that such person drive a LOT OF MILES to recoup the cost of an additional car payment, insurance, fuel and maintenance.

So basically you're saying "There's lots of things wrong in the world besides just fuel consumption, and I can't fix it so... screw it. We're doomed, I might as well enjoy things while I can."

That's one of the attitudes I'm reeling against.

No, actually I'm saying the same thing you said previously, PICK YOUR BATTLES. I feel the impact from urban sprawl is far more serious and permanent than emissions from SUVs.

Again, back to: We don't really know for sure, but we're betting on the fate of the planet, the risk is too great.

According to you!

Man didn't survive either of them. Man wasn't around. Man will die if it happens again.

Actually, I believe man developed during the Ice Age

No, actually Canada is fighting the terrorists in Afganistan. No terrorists came from Iraq. You guys asked us to take over in that theater so you could go after the oil supply, since we already have enough of our own.

That is actually one of the most ignorant statements you have made. Completely biased and untruthful. While I agree that we should have finished the job in Afghanistan, it's completely and utterly ridiculous to assert that there are no terrorists or any terrorist threat from Irag. They helped harbor and breed terrorist and terrorism.

I'll play your game and say that we asked you to take over on the mountain because all the hard work was already done. See how ridiculous that sounds?

Ok, the numbers are in and around there... At least Asian countries are trying hard to reduce oil usage. They have stricter fuel economy requirements, despite having less technology to accomplish it.

While you may be correct, the predicted increases in use over the next 10 years will far exceed useage growth in the US.

Don't contribute? Um, you know we supply a huge amount of your oil... technically we could decide how much you pay.

We contribute in many other ways. Your self centered views prevent you from seeing that. The two economies are intimately linked.

If anyone is being self centered it's you. There are many economies in the world that are intimately linked. It still does not give you the right to tell another country what their gas prices should be.

I knew it wouldn't be long before McCarthyism reared it's head. "Everybody who disagrees with us is a Commie!"

Go with that, it's a really intelligent argument to make.

I agree but you did somewhat incite that remark with some of the blanket statements you have made.

That's exactly what I've proposed for a long time. Tax gas to $5/gal, then cut everybody a refund based on driving an average car an average distance. Those who continue to waste fuel get taxed, those who are efficient, save money.

That is a very novel idea, but impossible to prove and enforce. It would take another branch of government to manage something like that.

The population must grow for the economy to keep growing. The economy must grow to avoid being left behind by the rest of the world. Couples must be encouraged to have kids, not discouraged because of the costs. Those kids will pay you back when you're old, because they will pay taxes then, and support you in old age by funding the government pension plan you are drawing from. They might also be the same kids who go to war for you, protect you from crime, or heal your wounds.

If people stopped having kids because you taxed them, the economy would crumble in about 20-30 years. You would suffer in the end.

I totally agree.

To bring this back on topic. Whether you agree on any of these arguments or not, they are valid reasons for and against owning a smaller car that MAY cause more bodily harm in an accident.

 

"I can swing my fist anywhere where i want, untill it contacts your face"

In the US you are suppose to have UNLIMITED freedom untill it encroches on someone elses freedom.

Want to drive an SUV? fine, but get the hell out of the left hand lane, doing 50, wile talking on the phone. YOU are not encroching on MY freedom to travle safley down the road and legally pass you. Yes this is america and you have rights, but so do i and every other person that lives here. You also have more responsibiltiy. If you car does more damage to the road, you should pay more for that. If your car causes more damage to other cars, you should face more restrictions of lane use and such to reduce the chance of hurting other drivers.

Also take your pick, a 2003 F150, or a mini cooper before you crash into a solid brick wall at 40mph If you picked the f150 you would probabally be dead, and if you picked the mini you have a good chance of surviving. The mini simpally has a better designed safety system and therefore if it hits a solid barrier it peforms better. The only reason an SUV would be safer in a crash is because it runs OVER the other car instead of relying on its crumple zones. Put this way would you rather see 2 mini's hit head on, or 2 f150's hit head on at 25mph. The 2 minis would fair MUCH better than the 2 f150's.

If everyone was forced to drive small and very safe cars, we would be better off than if everyone was forced to drive LARGE suv's that have to meet less strict safety standards.

That said there seams to be a big descripency between safety ratings and real world results. As the example given above where the Chevy minivans are some of the worse designed safety structure vehicles, they are also one of the statistically safest vehicles, the same is true with SUV's. A study released a wile ago (and i think posted on FJ) states that car vs SUV crashes the SUV driver was more likley to die thant the car driver! That is with all the extra mass etc behind the car and you are still less safe than you are in a car!