Ride an SUB not an SUV

In article , Bill wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:
Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006

That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet).

FYI: Occidental is the pet oil company of the Gore family.

Not that shrub doesn't have pet oil companies, but Occidental isn't his.
While vice president Al Gore gave Occidental a deal that made teapot dome
look small.

Fred G. Mackey wrote:
Bill wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:

Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
gargantuan sum of money...

Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
in U.S. corporate history.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occid..._pay.html?.v=8

But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them.

That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet). For gas
to be headed towards the $4/gallon mark and the CEO's and oil
shareholders making obscene profits is just not right. They should be
hurting along with the rest of the country,

Why?

The rest of the country really isn't hurting that much - sure we're
spending more on gas, but demand hasn't gone down significantly, nor are
people starving to put gas in their cars.

This only shows the stupidity of some (most?) Americans. I have 2 little
4 bangers and just to drive the 11 mile round trip to see my friend is
over a dollar. I can ride a bike there but sometimes I am carrying
computer equipment. It is a LITTLE car I drive and all the stuff fits.
So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?

not getting richer at the expense of everyone else in the country.

Would you prefer a gov't owned oil industry - like Mexico or Venezuela
(and I presume many middle eastern countries) have?

If you mean a Bush owned oil industry, then Hell no! I know the CEOs
take an unfair share of the money, but the government would set up so
many study committees that it would take more money than the CEOs cost.


Of course, you don't see Bush even thinking about an SUV gas guzzler
tax either.

Why should he?

Because after 8 years he should be remembered for getting at least one
thing right.

Bill Baka
Again.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill wrote:

So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?

Again.

People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:

1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.

2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.

3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff from
Home Depot, Lowes, etc.

4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and the
SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job. Some
people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
either.

5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have made
it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.

"Dave Head" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill wrote:

So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?

Again.

People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only
have
money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:

1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it,
and
anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the
snow.

2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.

3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff
from
Home Depot, Lowes, etc.

4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and
the
SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job.
Some
people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
either.

5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have
made
it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.


Number 6, they might just want one.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 06:49:05 -0500, "di" wrote:


"Dave Head" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill wrote:

So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?

Again.

People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only
have
money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:

1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it,
and
anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the
snow.

2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.

3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff
from
Home Depot, Lowes, etc.

4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and
the
SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job.
Some
people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
either.

5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have
made
it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.


Number 6, they might just want one.

There is that, too.

On Apr 8, 6:40 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
Bill wrote:
donquijote1954 wrote:

Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
gargantuan sum of money...

Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
in U.S. corporate history.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occid..._pay.html?.v=8

But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them.

That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet). For gas to
be headed towards the $4/gallon mark and the CEO's and oil shareholders
making obscene profits is just not right. They should be hurting along
with the rest of the country,

Why?

The rest of the country really isn't hurting that much - sure we're
spending more on gas, but demand hasn't gone down significantly, nor are
people starving to put gas in their cars.


Maybe the filthy rich and upper middle class aren't hurting that much,
but those at the botom are...

Cost of war filtering down to states, cities
By STEVEN K. PAULSON Associated Press Writer
DENVER (AP) - The cost of the Iraq war is filtering down to state and
local budgets, forcing cuts in transportation funding, Medicaid,
education and other federally subsidized programs, according to
analysts and lawmakers.

Just how big that impact has been is unclear. What state lawmakers do
say is that the $456 billion already spent or appropriated for the war
could have gone a long way toward helping them balance their own
budgets.

In Colorado, lawmakers expect to lose about $200 million in federal
funding for the next fiscal year, forcing the state to cut back on
programs that receive federal money.

"These are funds that we aren't going to receive. Low Energy
Assistance Program, $9.8 million, gone. Head Start, $3.7 million,
gone. Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1.1 million. Community
Development Block Grant, $13.5 million. Special Ed, $8.8 million,"
House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, said during a debate
Thursday over a state resolution opposing the escalation of the war in
Iraq.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/200...na/000cost.txt


not getting richer at the expense of
everyone else in the country.

Would you prefer a gov't owned oil industry - like Mexico or Venezuela
(and I presume many middle eastern countries) have?

When the goverment is owned by Big Oil, what's the diff?

Of course, you don't see Bush even thinking about an SUV gas guzzler tax
either.

Why should he?

Because then he could used those taxes for a) pay for the war and
b)subsidize alternative transportation.

The flag waving SUVs shows what classes are for the war: those at the
top of the food chain.

On Apr 9, 5:41 am, Dave Head wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill wrote:
So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
Again.


Many many excuses here...

People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:

Or they could buy three Ford Focus for the price of one SUV.

1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.

First of all, we are aiming at SUPERSIZED SUVs here and that got
nothing to do with the capacity of a 4x4 to handle snow. Supersized
Unnecessary Vehicles are deadly to other people and, pollute
unncessarily and are often driven by undertrained drivers while
chatting on the phone.

2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.

OK, minivans are better at that and have lower bumpers as well as
better aerodynamics.


3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff from
Home Depot, Lowes, etc.

And why don't you rent U-Haul?

4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and the
SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job. Some
people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
either.

Exactly, two wrongs don't make a right.


5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have made
it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.

Federal laws made it easy for the Big Three to compete in the only
area they could against the smarter, more efficient Japanese and
European cars: GET BIGGER. Big is Good, Big is Beautiful, and Big
feeds the Big Three the best.

On Apr 9, 7:49 am, "di" wrote:

5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have
made
it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.

Number 6, they might just want one.-

Lions and monkeys don't want the same. Lions dream of big and pompous.
Monkeys are more into practical, fun things like bikes, motorcycles
and EVs. And they are beautiful, just not pompous.

The only areawhere you are #1 is in ribbons...

http://blogorelli.typepad.com/photos...ed/ribbons.gif

On Apr 9, 5:41 am, Dave Head wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill wrote:
So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
Again.

People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:

1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.

Don't confuse Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles with 4x4s. I quote
here...

There is often confusion as to the difference between 4X4s and SUVs.
This leads to criticisms of 4X4 vehicles in the media that should
actually be directed at SUVs...

For example...

Psychology
SUV safety concerns are compounded by a perception among some
consumers that SUVs are safer for their drivers than standard cars.
According to G. C. Rapaille, a psychological consultant to automakers
(as cited in Gladwell, 2004), many consumers feel safer in SUVs simply
because their ride height makes "[their passengers] higher and
dominate and look down (sic). That you can look down [on other people]
is psychologically a very powerful notion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-wheel_drive

So SUVs are the favorite vehicle of the wannabe Napoleons that want to
feel "superior," not that of the real adventurous people like these...

http://www.outback4x4challenge.com/images/20051lg.jpg

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:41:16 GMT, Dave Head wrote:

People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:

1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.

That would explain why the most common vehicle stuck in the middle of
the snow bank is a SUV. We didn't have SUVs back in the 1960s and got
to work just fine in Michigan.

2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.

Well, my mid-sized car would take two child seats in the back and have
room for another kid. It could carry two adults and four kids, two in
child seats.

3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff from
Home Depot, Lowes, etc.

If it doesn't have a 4 foot by 8 foot bed, it is just like any other
vehicle. Pick up drivers are probably laughing their asses off over
this one.

4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and the
SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job. Some
people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
either.

Interestingly, most SUVs can barely carry their own weight, and that
includes most of the ones you see on the road. You have to pick your
SUV or pickup carefully to get one that can carry a payload.

5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have made
it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.

Bull - the market is what killed the station wagon, not safety
regulations. If a modern station wagon was built (arguably a Pacifica
is one), it could easily be safer than a SUV - way safer.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...