Ride an SUB not an SUV

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:


That's the reason some people drive them. Others drive them for no good
reason other than we have a thing called freedom in the US.

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.


I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove by
them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because they
couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they thought
their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that hadn't yet
been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass" their SUV really is.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...

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


This doesn't make any sense at all to me, I guess you need to explain it.
But then again, not much you ever say makes much sense.

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell writes:

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.

I wonder if there's a correlation between the upsurge of
popularity of SUVs, and the release of the film: Dante's Peak.

The SUV that starred in that flick could survive anything
Hollywood threw at it.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:

I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove by
them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because they
couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they thought
their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that hadn't yet
been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass" their SUV really is.

Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with the all
terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.

DPH

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

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.

ROFL! I had this conversation earlier this year, when an SUV-driving,
rabid modern Republican began bitching about gas prices and declaring
that the government had better do something to bring the price down.
(Yup. Irony abounded). She gave most of the arguments described here.
I drove to work in a blizzard- twice as far as she did- in my 16 year
old Volvo 240. Didn't have the slightest problem. In fact I've not had
any more trouble with the Volvo in Minnesota snow than I did with my old
Bronco II (although the BII *did* drive through unplowed streets after a
28" snowfall without any trouble, but that kind of thing is really rare).

snip

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.

An SUV *is* a station wagon. Don't tell anyone.

BTW speaking of modern station wagons:

http://www.volvocars.us/models/v50/

http://www.volvocars.us/models/v70/

http://www.volvocars.us/models/xc70/

In article ,
Dave Head wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
wrote:

I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove
by them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because
they couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they
thought their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that
hadn't yet been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass"
their SUV really is.

Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.

You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:31:55 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Dave Head wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
wrote:

I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove
by them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because
they couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they
thought their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that
hadn't yet been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass"
their SUV really is.

Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.

You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.

And its the main reason you can't do what the anti-SUV'ers suggest, which is to
rent one when you need one. The rentals all have smooth tires, and you then
get stuck anyway, 4WD or not.

DPH

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"di" wrote in message
...

"Baxter" wrote in message
...
"di" wrote in message
...

"Baxter" wrote in message
...
"di" wrote in message
...

"Baxter" wrote in message
...
-
.

Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
billion
on
our own nation?

Our own nation is not New Orleans,

New Oreans IS part of the United States.

we already sunk millions into that place,
most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.

Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made
sure
of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.

This is a good example of the liberal mentality, after all these years
they
still think they can pick up a turd by the clean end. Any person or
group
can help inprove their own status, it takes a little ambition, a little
patience, and a lot of work, 3 things that are missing in places like
New
Orleans. The "system" you are referring to is the very system you are
promoting. You think the solution to any problem is to throw more
money
at
it, especially someone else's money.

What's "liberal" about taking care of your own people instead of
throwing
away our tax money on Iraqi's who hate us?

Because we've already spent millions down there, it was mostly all
squandered to waste and corruption with very little noticeable results.

And Billions have been squandered to waste an corruption in Iraq - with
NEGATIVE results.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .

"Baxter" wrote in message
...

Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of
dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
people.

(and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly fair in
LA.)

Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana are
somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?

Your question is nonsensical.

What does the
amount of money we are spending in Iraq have to do with urban planning,
when
you get down to it?

This has got to be Ideological Ignorance.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Clark F Morris" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:41:56 -0700, "Baxter"
wrote:

Gamblers excuse. We need to recognize it's past time to cut our losses -
we'll come out ahead in the long run.

The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.

Still the Gamblers Excuse. It's past time for surgery.