BRING BACK THE GAS GUZZLING TAX!

[Susan McIntosh]

As the reality of the world oil supply is becoming more transparent - even
to idiots like Ford Excursion and GM Suburban drivers, it only makes sense
to make it a law to make those idiots to share the cost burden.

A 500% gas guzzling tax should be and must be imposed on large SUVs as they
have driven up the demand for oil supply and they have pumped more
pollution to the air shared by everyone.

Since the morons who spend $50K on a vehicle would not feel the pinch with
$3.00/gal price tag, the civilized folks must show these barbaric creatures
that their stupid and irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated.

In addition to 500% gas guzzling tax, the full-size SUV owners should be
doing community work on the weekend such as cleaning public restrooms to
help them appreciate who they really are: the excrement of the society
regardless of their hefty bank accounts.

For those of us who feel the pinch at the gas pumps, we must realize that
the voracious consumption of gasoline by those bastards SUV owners is a
part of the cause for the high gas price AND your breathing difficulty.

The Bush administration is encouraging more super-size SUV on the road to
keep its friends on the executive boards of the auto industry happy. So, if
you consider super-size SUVs like the ugly Hummers as the public enemy No.
1, Bush and his unscrupulous cronies are also public eneny number one.

[Jaberwokie]

You really are stupid! We'd look pretty silly trying to carry half the
baseball team to McDonalds in a Yugo. It would be damned hard pulling my
Fifth Wheel with a Toyota. If you are so conservation minded and think
you are not righeous unless you suffer get a bicycle and drive that to
work in a Midwest winter.

Post by Susan McIntosh
As the reality of the world oil supply is becoming more transparent - even
to idiots like Ford Excursion and GM Suburban drivers, it only makes sense
to make it a law to make those idiots to share the cost burden.
A 500% gas guzzling tax should be and must be imposed on large SUVs as they
have driven up the demand for oil supply and they have pumped more
pollution to the air shared by everyone.
Since the morons who spend $50K on a vehicle would not feel the pinch with
$3.00/gal price tag, the civilized folks must show these barbaric creatures
that their stupid and irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated.
In addition to 500% gas guzzling tax, the full-size SUV owners should be
doing community work on the weekend such as cleaning public restrooms to
help them appreciate who they really are: the excrement of the society
regardless of their hefty bank accounts.
For those of us who feel the pinch at the gas pumps, we must realize that
the voracious consumption of gasoline by those bastards SUV owners is a
part of the cause for the high gas price AND your breathing difficulty.
The Bush administration is encouraging more super-size SUV on the road to
keep its friends on the executive boards of the auto industry happy. So, if
you consider super-size SUVs like the ugly Hummers as the public enemy No.
1, Bush and his unscrupulous cronies are also public eneny number one.

[Harry K]

Post by Jaberwokie
You really are stupid! We'd look pretty silly trying to carry half the
baseball team to McDonalds in a Yugo.

A mini van would make more sense.

It would be damned hard pulling my

Post by Jaberwokie
Fifth Wheel with a Toyota.

So you post an exception. Clue 99% of SUV have never been hooked to
anything.

If you are so conservation minded and think

Post by Jaberwokie
you are not righeous unless you suffer get a bicycle and drive that to
work in a Midwest winter.

Try driving just a normal car in the winter. Another clue, it works
amazingly well, you don't need 4x to drive in winter.

Summary: you have used the usual apologetics
- used a rare exception
- posted a non-valid belief
to attempt to justify your true reason "because I want one".

The argument about SUVs etc was lost long ago when the consumers quit
using their brains when making purchase decisions.

Harry K

[Bob Ward]

Post by Harry K

Post by Jaberwokie
You really are stupid! We'd look pretty silly trying to carry half the
baseball team to McDonalds in a Yugo.

A mini van would make more sense.
It would be damned hard pulling my

Post by Jaberwokie
Fifth Wheel with a Toyota.

So you post an exception. Clue 99% of SUV have never been hooked to
anything.
If you are so conservation minded and think

Post by Jaberwokie
you are not righeous unless you suffer get a bicycle and drive that to
work in a Midwest winter.

Try driving just a normal car in the winter. Another clue, it works
amazingly well, you don't need 4x to drive in winter.
Summary: you have used the usual apologetics
- used a rare exception
- posted a non-valid belief
to attempt to justify your true reason "because I want one".
The argument about SUVs etc was lost long ago when the consumers quit
using their brains when making purchase decisions.
Harry K

You are posting your personal prejudices and assumptions and labeling
them as fact. That doesn't win the argument.

A "normal car" doesn't work "amazingly well" in the winter for all
people. Like it or not, there are many people who need the additional
ground clearance when the local snowplows don't get to their
neighborhood before they must leave for work.

That "true reason" - "because I want one" is all the justification
that is necessary.

[Harry K]

Post by Bob Ward

Post by Harry K

Post by Jaberwokie
You really are stupid! We'd look pretty silly trying to carry half the
baseball team to McDonalds in a Yugo.

A mini van would make more sense.
It would be damned hard pulling my

Post by Jaberwokie
Fifth Wheel with a Toyota.

So you post an exception. Clue 99% of SUV have never been hooked to
anything.
If you are so conservation minded and think

Post by Jaberwokie
you are not righeous unless you suffer get a bicycle and drive that to
work in a Midwest winter.

Try driving just a normal car in the winter. Another clue, it works
amazingly well, you don't need 4x to drive in winter.
Summary: you have used the usual apologetics
- used a rare exception
- posted a non-valid belief
to attempt to justify your true reason "because I want one".
The argument about SUVs etc was lost long ago when the consumers quit
using their brains when making purchase decisions.
Harry K

You are posting your personal prejudices and assumptions and labeling
them as fact. That doesn't win the argument.
A "normal car" doesn't work "amazingly well" in the winter for all
people. Like it or not, there are many people who need the additional
ground clearance when the local snowplows don't get to their
neighborhood before they must leave for work.
That "true reason" - "because I want one" is all the justification
that is necessary.

I'll try this again. Don't know if the first one posted as I got an
error message.

re: posting personal prejudices. You mean the OP wasn't??

A normal car does work well (maybe not amazingly). I presume that in
bad conditions the only vehicles you see on the road are SUV??? Not
in my world, the mix doesn't change. I do live in the snow belt, in
the country and drive a fwd over the same roads and same conditions
and times that my neighbor insists requires a 4x.

The 'because I want one' is a valid reason and I have no problem with
it. I have been saying that in these discussions for years. I do
have a problem with people trying to justify the vehicle with bogus
reasons as in the OP. I would love to see his SUV with the heavy body
modifications so he can tow his gooseneck.

Harry K

[Bob Ward]

Post by Harry K

Post by Bob Ward

Post by Harry K

Post by Jaberwokie
You really are stupid! We'd look pretty silly trying to carry half the
baseball team to McDonalds in a Yugo.

A mini van would make more sense.
It would be damned hard pulling my

Post by Jaberwokie
Fifth Wheel with a Toyota.

So you post an exception. Clue 99% of SUV have never been hooked to
anything.
If you are so conservation minded and think

Post by Jaberwokie
you are not righeous unless you suffer get a bicycle and drive that to
work in a Midwest winter.

Try driving just a normal car in the winter. Another clue, it works
amazingly well, you don't need 4x to drive in winter.
Summary: you have used the usual apologetics
- used a rare exception
- posted a non-valid belief
to attempt to justify your true reason "because I want one".
The argument about SUVs etc was lost long ago when the consumers quit
using their brains when making purchase decisions.
Harry K

You are posting your personal prejudices and assumptions and labeling
them as fact. That doesn't win the argument.
A "normal car" doesn't work "amazingly well" in the winter for all
people. Like it or not, there are many people who need the additional
ground clearance when the local snowplows don't get to their
neighborhood before they must leave for work.
That "true reason" - "because I want one" is all the justification
that is necessary.

I'll try this again. Don't know if the first one posted as I got an
error message.
re: posting personal prejudices. You mean the OP wasn't??
A normal car does work well (maybe not amazingly). I presume that in
bad conditions the only vehicles you see on the road are SUV??? Not
in my world, the mix doesn't change. I do live in the snow belt, in
the country and drive a fwd over the same roads and same conditions
and times that my neighbor insists requires a 4x.
The 'because I want one' is a valid reason and I have no problem with
it. I have been saying that in these discussions for years. I do
have a problem with people trying to justify the vehicle with bogus
reasons as in the OP. I would love to see his SUV with the heavy body
modifications so he can tow his gooseneck.
Harry K

Unless he is asking you to write the check, why do you think he has to
"justify the vehicle with bogus reasons"? You have a problem, all
right - and it has nothing at all to do with what someone else chooses
to drive - or why.

[Lana]

Post by Jaberwokie
You really are stupid! We'd look pretty silly trying to carry half the
baseball team to McDonalds in a Yugo. It would be damned hard pulling
my Fifth Wheel with a Toyota. If you are so conservation minded and
think you are not righeous unless you suffer get a bicycle and drive
that to work in a Midwest winter.

Actually you seem to be the real stupid one for making no sense in your
counter-argument. Most SUV drivers use their vehicles for grocery shopping
- a task could be easily and comfortably accomplished with a little 30-mpg
Corolla!

Your argument only make your stupidity more transparent. Perhaps you should
either wise up or let yourself dissolved in the sewage, of which you seem
to be made out of.

[Paul]

"Susan McIntosh" <***@alterenergy.org> wrote in message news:***@66.150.105.49...

Ahhhhh, I see that judy has nym-shifted again........

Post by Susan McIntosh
In addition to 500% gas guzzling tax, the full-size SUV owners should be
doing community work on the weekend such as cleaning public restrooms to
help them appreciate who they really are: the excrement of the society
regardless of their hefty bank accounts.

Ever hear of the 13th Amendment? See: http://tinyurl.com/3d8h9 if you
don't know what I am talking about.

Post by Susan McIntosh
For those of us who feel the pinch at the gas pumps, we must realize that
the voracious consumption of gasoline by those bastards SUV owners is a
part of the cause for the high gas price AND your breathing

difficulty.

I don't let the price of gas bother me anymore. Actually, when I listen
to these suv'ers whine and cry on the TV news about how they have to
choose between their latte a day and gas for their land yacht, I find it
rather amusing.

Post by Susan McIntosh
The Bush administration is encouraging more super-size SUV on the road to
keep its friends on the executive boards of the auto industry happy. So, if
you consider super-size SUVs like the ugly Hummers as the public enemy No.
1, Bush and his unscrupulous cronies are also public eneny number one.

And that would make bush any different from any other politician how? I
don't exactly see the democrats or any other politicians doing anything
in regards to our addiction to oil.

[Harry K]

Post by Paul
Ahhhhh, I see that judy has nym-shifted again........

Post by Susan McIntosh
In addition to 500% gas guzzling tax, the full-size SUV owners should

be

Post by Susan McIntosh
doing community work on the weekend such as cleaning public restrooms

to

Post by Susan McIntosh
help them appreciate who they really are: the excrement of the society
regardless of their hefty bank accounts.

Ever hear of the 13th Amendment? See: http://tinyurl.com/3d8h9 if you
don't know what I am talking about.

Post by Susan McIntosh
For those of us who feel the pinch at the gas pumps, we must realize

that

Post by Susan McIntosh
the voracious consumption of gasoline by those bastards SUV owners is

a

Post by Susan McIntosh
part of the cause for the high gas price AND your breathing

difficulty.
I don't let the price of gas bother me anymore. Actually, when I listen
to these suv'ers whine and cry on the TV news about how they have to
choose between their latte a day and gas for their land yacht, I find it
rather amusing.

<snip>

I find it at least encouraging that the dealers are now offering
incentives to push these overrated things. Seems at least some of the
former customers are having second thoughts.

Harry K

[Laura Bush murdered her boy friend]

Post by Susan McIntosh
As the reality of the world oil supply is becoming more transparent - even
to idiots like Ford Excursion and GM Suburban drivers, it only makes sense
to make it a law to make those idiots to share the cost burden.
A 500% gas guzzling tax should be and must be imposed on large SUVs as they
have driven up the demand for oil supply and they have pumped more
pollution to the air shared by everyone.
Since the morons who spend $50K on a vehicle would not feel the pinch with
$3.00/gal price tag, the civilized folks must show these barbaric creatures
that their stupid and irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated.
In addition to 500% gas guzzling tax, the full-size SUV owners should be
doing community work on the weekend such as cleaning public restrooms to
help them appreciate who they really are: the excrement of the society
regardless of their hefty bank accounts.
For those of us who feel the pinch at the gas pumps, we must realize that
the voracious consumption of gasoline by those bastards SUV owners is a
part of the cause for the high gas price AND your breathing difficulty.
The Bush administration is encouraging more super-size SUV on the road to
keep its friends on the executive boards of the auto industry happy. So, if
you consider super-size SUVs like the ugly Hummers as the public enemy No.
1, Bush and his unscrupulous cronies are also public eneny number one.

The SUV owners say it's no one else's business but that is obvious BS
since their gas wasting drives up prices for everyone. And there is
also the issue that 3 ton SUVs are a menace to other drivers.

[Alert]

Yes, the oil is running out. That is why they invaded Iraq and
Afghanistan.

With the official reasons for the conquests of Iraq and Afghanistan
discredited, it becomes ever more apparent that the true motive for
the war on Iraq was oil, just as the real evidence always suggested:

http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/archive.asp

http://www.thedebate.org

Post by Susan McIntosh
As the reality of the world oil supply is becoming more transparent - even
to idiots like Ford Excursion and GM Suburban drivers, it only makes sense
to make it a law to make those idiots to share the cost burden.
A 500% gas guzzling tax should be and must be imposed on large SUVs as they
have driven up the demand for oil supply and they have pumped more
pollution to the air shared by everyone.
Since the morons who spend $50K on a vehicle would not feel the pinch with
$3.00/gal price tag, the civilized folks must show these barbaric creatures
that their stupid and irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated.
In addition to 500% gas guzzling tax, the full-size SUV owners should be
doing community work on the weekend such as cleaning public restrooms to
help them appreciate who they really are: the excrement of the society
regardless of their hefty bank accounts.
For those of us who feel the pinch at the gas pumps, we must realize that
the voracious consumption of gasoline by those bastards SUV owners is a
part of the cause for the high gas price AND your breathing difficulty.
The Bush administration is encouraging more super-size SUV on the road to
keep its friends on the executive boards of the auto industry happy. So, if
you consider super-size SUVs like the ugly Hummers as the public enemy No.
1, Bush and his unscrupulous cronies are also public eneny number one.

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Alert
Yes, the oil is running out. That is why they invaded Iraq and
Afghanistan.

you're right, how could the rest of us been so blind that we missed
the real reasons, those planes flying into buildings in the US had
nothing at all to do with the US's actions!

we just had to get our hands on all that oil in afghanistan


you're an idiot!

[Lance Lamboy]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Alert
Yes, the oil is running out. That is why they invaded Iraq and
Afghanistan.

you're right, how could the rest of us been so blind that we missed
the real reasons, those planes flying into buildings in the US had
nothing at all to do with the US's actions!

Paul O'Neil is just one of many former administration insiders who say
that the invasion of Iraq was planned long before 9/11.

Of course 9/11 had something to do with the invasion of Afghanistan and
Iraq. It was how the administration sold their war.

Post by 127.0.0.1
we just had to get our hands on all that oil in afghanistan
you're an idiot!

[Larry Bud]

Post by Susan McIntosh
As the reality of the world oil supply is becoming more transparent - even
to idiots like Ford Excursion and GM Suburban drivers, it only makes sense
to make it a law to make those idiots to share the cost burden.

They do, they use more gas, so they already pay more tax. If you're
so concerned about it, sell your car and ride a bike.

[Matthew Russotto]

Post by Susan McIntosh
As the reality of the world oil supply is becoming more transparent - even
to idiots like Ford Excursion and GM Suburban drivers, it only makes sense
to make it a law to make those idiots to share the cost burden.

That's a 1 out of 10 on the troll-o-meter, with an extra .2 bonus for
changing the Newsgroups line.

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <***@66.150.105.49>, ***@alterenergy.org
says...

Post by Susan McIntosh
As the reality of the world oil supply is becoming more transparent

20 years ago there were predictions that there would be no oil now. Why
should we believe the predictions this time?

Post by Susan McIntosh
- even
to idiots like Ford Excursion and GM Suburban drivers, it only makes sense
to make it a law to make those idiots to share the cost burden.

They share the cost by paying for more fuel and the accompanying taxes.

Post by Susan McIntosh
For those of us who feel the pinch at the gas pumps, we must realize that
the voracious consumption of gasoline by those bastards SUV owners is a
part of the cause for the high gas price AND your breathing difficulty.

Can you show proof of this?

Post by Susan McIntosh
The Bush administration is encouraging more super-size SUV on the road to
keep its friends on the executive boards of the auto industry happy. So, if
you consider super-size SUVs like the ugly Hummers as the public enemy No.
1, Bush and his unscrupulous cronies are also public eneny number one.

There are plenty of reasons to no like Bush without having to make up
stupid reasons.
----------------
Alex

[Bobby The D]

Post by Susan McIntosh
A 500% gas guzzling tax should be and must be imposed on large SUVs as they
have driven up the demand for oil supply and they have pumped more
pollution to the air shared by everyone.
Since the morons who spend $50K on a vehicle would not feel the pinch with
$3.00/gal price tag, the civilized folks must show these barbaric creatures
that their stupid and irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated.

Last I knew this was a free country and people could drive whatever
they wished. If you want to drive an anemic little sardine can like a
Metro or a Prius, go right ahead but if someone wants to drive a car
that DOESN't get good gas mileage it's their right too and the
government shouldn't interfere. If they bitch about gas prices later,
well that's too bad. I also don't think there should be any gov't
subsidy or tax break for driving a hybrid car either. If they're so
great, then there shouldn't be any need to subsidize them.

[Jason]

In alt.travel.road-trip Bobby The D <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:
<snip>

Post by Bobby The D
I also don't think there should be any gov't
subsidy or tax break for driving a hybrid car either. If they're so
great, then there shouldn't be any need to subsidize them.

You don't sound very educated on the subject.

Who said hybrids are great? Take two identical cars except for
powerplant and mileage. The hybrid costs more. It's a fledgling
technology that attracts the relatively altruistic, esoteric, or
froo froo types to make personal monetary sacrifices to own one.
Uncle Sam subsidizes hybrids because even those customers would
balk at full price. And because Uncle Sam wants a happy nation
if/when mass transportation becomes resource challenged. Hybrids
appear to be the best opium at the moment.

Meanwhile, everything about SUVs has been discovered. Nothing new
there. There's no real reason to push SUVs. The future is already
clear (it may take a couple of decades).

What we know about SUVs:
SUVs attract idiot driver demographics

SUVs are used as battering rams at night clubs

Guys with small dicks try to intimidate other drivers with SUVs

SUVs go well with fake tits. Especially bad boob job tits where
the left nipple points to the north star while the right nipple
points to Mecca.

There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.


And I've driven in the snow for years. You don't need an SUV
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

In the 60's, we were forced to use monster trucks uphill
both ways to get to work. BWAHAHAHAHAH!

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Harry K
<snip>

Post by Bobby The D
I also don't think there should be any gov't
subsidy or tax break for driving a hybrid car either. If they're so
great, then there shouldn't be any need to subsidize them.

You don't sound very educated on the subject.

pot kettle black

{balance of idiocy snipped}

[Jason]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Harry K
<snip>

Post by Bobby The D
I also don't think there should be any gov't
subsidy or tax break for driving a hybrid car either. If they're so
great, then there shouldn't be any need to subsidize them.

You don't sound very educated on the subject.

pot kettle black
{balance of idiocy snipped}

You must be a dumbass SUV owner holding a phone in one hand and
a PDA in the other. Once you get the pedestrian's hair out of
your grill, please, continue your point of view.

[sing sing]

Post by Jason

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Harry K
<snip>

Post by Bobby The D
I also don't think there should be any gov't
subsidy or tax break for driving a hybrid car either. If they're so
great, then there shouldn't be any need to subsidize them.

You don't sound very educated on the subject.

pot kettle black
{balance of idiocy snipped}

You must be a dumbass SUV owner holding a phone in one hand and
a PDA in the other. Once you get the pedestrian's hair out of
your grill, please, continue your point of view.

Hear hear!

There must be a new entry in the American Heritage Dictionary that defines
SUV drivers = stupid, morons, enemies of the civilized world, scum of the
earth, terrorists, people who should be stumped and torn in pieces by wild
beast (their ancestors).

Have you stumped a SUV driver lately?

[127.0.0.1]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:59:34 GMT, sing sing

Post by sing sing
Have you stumped a SUV driver lately?

you're just a jealous twit

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Jason
You must be a dumbass SUV owner holding a phone in one hand and
a PDA in the other. Once you get the pedestrian's hair out of
your grill, please, continue your point of view.

when you grow up and can afford the car of your choice you won't be
such an opinionated ass, and I don't own an SUV

[Jason]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Jason
You must be a dumbass SUV owner holding a phone in one hand and
a PDA in the other. Once you get the pedestrian's hair out of
your grill, please, continue your point of view.

when you grow up and can afford the car of your choice you won't be
such an opinionated ass, and I don't own an SUV

Alright. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you own an SUV.

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Jason

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Harry K
<snip>

Post by Bobby The D
I also don't think there should be any gov't
subsidy or tax break for driving a hybrid car either. If they're so
great, then there shouldn't be any need to subsidize them.

You don't sound very educated on the subject.

pot kettle black
{balance of idiocy snipped}

You must be a dumbass SUV owner holding a phone in one hand and
a PDA in the other. Once you get the pedestrian's hair out of
your grill, please, continue your point of view.

Speaking of which, I was just driving thru a parking lot and had to stop
because a Suburban just pulled out in front of me and then just stopped
while the driver dialed a number on her cell phone.

You'd think you could at least dial the phone while you're still parked.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Matthew Russotto]

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

[Mike Z. Helm]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 14:13:35 -0500, ***@grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Keith]

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

Many do. I have a 4WD truck for that exact reason. So? Who are you to
tell people what the "need"?

[Roughrider50]

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I also have an SUV for that purpose. There are many more uses that I
embrace.....i.e getting in & out of a pristine wilderness while engaged in
the pastime of killing animals & birds, also called "hunting", launching my
pollutant belching 2 stroke fishing boat so I can spend the day ripping lips
off little fishies. All kinds of politically incorrect activities that
annoys little dweebs, but give me great pleasure.
--
Roughrider50

Post by Keith
Many do. I have a 4WD truck for that exact reason. So? Who are you to
tell people what the "need"?
--
Keith

[Keith]

Post by Roughrider50

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I also have an SUV for that purpose.

The moron can't even figure out how to answer a post! Lesse what software
he's using... <switches screens>:

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437

That explains a lot!

Post by Roughrider50
There are many more uses that I embrace.....i.e getting in & out of a
pristine wilderness while engaged in the pastime of killing animals &
birds, also called "hunting",

"Pristine wilderness"? Is that the pile of kindling ready to go up with
next week's lightning?

"Killing animals"? Is it preferable for all to starve, rather than having
some feed humans?

Post by Roughrider50
launching my pollutant belching 2 stroke
fishing boat so I can spend the day ripping lips off little fishies.

You really need to get a life.

Post by Roughrider50
All kinds of politically incorrect activities

And there we have it! "politically correct" says it all!

Post by Roughrider50
that annoys little dweebs, but give me great pleasure.

Well, at least you have that right. Though I don't do any of the above it
makes me very happy that some do, if for no other reason to piss your kind
off. No, I have a 4WD truck because it is useful (and 2WD is wortless
here).

What a maroon!

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Keith

Post by Roughrider50

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I also have an SUV for that purpose.

The moron can't even figure out how to answer a post! Lesse what software
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437

Hey moron. It looks like you are talking about me, but I don't use OE.

Post by Keith
That explains a lot!

So does your above comment.

Post by Keith

Post by Roughrider50
There are many more uses that I embrace.....i.e getting in & out of a
pristine wilderness while engaged in the pastime of killing animals &
birds, also called "hunting",

"Pristine wilderness"? Is that the pile of kindling ready to go up with
next week's lightning?
"Killing animals"? Is it preferable for all to starve, rather than having
some feed humans?

Post by Roughrider50
launching my pollutant belching 2 stroke
fishing boat so I can spend the day ripping lips off little fishies.

You really need to get a life.

Post by Roughrider50
All kinds of politically incorrect activities

And there we have it! "politically correct" says it all!

That's amazing that you can extrapolate all that from a simple comment I
made, or are you talking about someone else.

Post by Keith

Post by Roughrider50
that annoys little dweebs, but give me great pleasure.

Well, at least you have that right. Though I don't do any of the above it
makes me very happy that some do, if for no other reason to piss your kind
off.

Now who are you referring to? I'm sure you didn't mean the person you
were replying to, but you did say "your kind".

FWIW, it doesn't piss me off that people hunt or fish and I believe in
the right to bear arms too.

I do give a shit about the environment, but that's just something decent
people do.

Post by Keith
No, I have a 4WD truck because it is useful (and 2WD is wortless
here).
What a maroon!

--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Keith]

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith

Post by Roughrider50

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I also have an SUV for that purpose.

The moron can't even figure out how to answer a post! Lesse what software
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437

Hey moron. It looks like you are talking about me, but I don't use OE.

Hey moron, perhaps you should learn to read! I was responding to
"Roughrider50" <***@hotmail.com>, who indeed does use *Lookout
Suspect*. Perhaps you need a lesson in Usenet literacy too?

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith
That explains a lot!

So does your above comment.

...want to apologize now?

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith

Post by Roughrider50
There are many more uses that I embrace.....i.e getting in & out of a
pristine wilderness while engaged in the pastime of killing animals &
birds, also called "hunting",

"Pristine wilderness"? Is that the pile of kindling ready to go up with
next week's lightning?
"Killing animals"? Is it preferable for all to starve, rather than
having some feed humans?

Post by Roughrider50
launching my pollutant belching 2 stroke fishing boat so I can spend
the day ripping lips off little fishies.

You really need to get a life.

Post by Roughrider50
All kinds of politically incorrect activities

And there we have it! "politically correct" says it all!

That's amazing that you can extrapolate all that from a simple comment I
made, or are you talking about someone else.

Post by Keith

Post by Roughrider50
that annoys little dweebs, but give me great pleasure.

Well, at least you have that right. Though I don't do any of the above
it makes me very happy that some do, if for no other reason to piss your
kind off.

Now who are you referring to?
I'm sure you didn't mean the person you
were replying to

Yes I did! ...though I was *not* replying to you. I don't know what your
problems is though (other than a brain-fart or acute Usenet illeteracy).

Post by Mike Z. Helm
but you did say "your kind".

You may now be contrite... ;-)

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith

Post by Roughrider50

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I also have an SUV for that purpose.

The moron can't even figure out how to answer a post! Lesse what software
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437

Hey moron. It looks like you are talking about me, but I don't use OE.

Hey moron, perhaps you should learn to read! I was responding to
Suspect*. Perhaps you need a lesson in Usenet literacy too?

you need a lesson in just plain old literacy. I made the comment about
"Most people" not needing to plow thru 5 inches of snow....

Your response is to someone who replied to me, so it is somewhat
ambiguous who you are referring to.

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith
That explains a lot!

So does your above comment.

...want to apologize now?

I have nothing to apologize for, least of all to you.

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith

Post by Roughrider50
There are many more uses that I embrace.....i.e getting in & out of a
pristine wilderness while engaged in the pastime of killing animals &
birds, also called "hunting",

"Pristine wilderness"? Is that the pile of kindling ready to go up with
next week's lightning?
"Killing animals"? Is it preferable for all to starve, rather than
having some feed humans?

Post by Roughrider50
launching my pollutant belching 2 stroke fishing boat so I can spend
the day ripping lips off little fishies.

You really need to get a life.

Post by Roughrider50
All kinds of politically incorrect activities

And there we have it! "politically correct" says it all!

That's amazing that you can extrapolate all that from a simple comment I
made, or are you talking about someone else.

Post by Keith

Post by Roughrider50
that annoys little dweebs, but give me great pleasure.

Well, at least you have that right. Though I don't do any of the above
it makes me very happy that some do, if for no other reason to piss your
kind off.

Now who are you referring to?

Yeah, only because I've made it clear your comments do not apply to me.
Care to apologize to me now?

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm
I'm sure you didn't mean the person you
were replying to

Yes I did! ...though I was *not* replying to you. I don't know what your
problems is though (other than a brain-fart or acute Usenet illeteracy).

You question my literacy when you can't even make your subject and verb
agree?

You were replying to someone who appears to agree with you, yet you said
"it makes me very happy.....if for no other reason than to piss *your*
kind off".

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm
but you did say "your kind".

You may now be contrite... ;-)

--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

Many do. I have a 4WD truck for that exact reason. So? Who are you to
tell people what the "need"?

I'm not telling anyone they don't need their truck. I'm just saying
most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

If you need it, or even if you just think you need it, or even if you
just want it, that's fine with me.

I do want the gov't to treat them as passenger cars when that's what
they are used for though.


--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Bob Ward]

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

Many do. I have a 4WD truck for that exact reason. So? Who are you to
tell people what the "need"?

I'm not telling anyone they don't need their truck. I'm just saying
most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.
If you need it, or even if you just think you need it, or even if you
just want it, that's fine with me.
I do want the gov't to treat them as passenger cars when that's what
they are used for though.

By that logic, the government should treat your computer as a laxative
- you sure use it to unload a bunch of shit.

[Matthew Russotto]

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I've certainly had to plow through 5 inches. 20 inches, I'm staying
home -- but so is WRX-man.

[Keith]

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I've certainly had to plow through 5 inches. 20 inches, I'm staying
home -- but so is WRX-man.

We had 24", 18", and 20", plus a few 2-4" falls over ten days last
December. Businesses may have been slowed down, but everyine went to work
(I did take my wife to work after the big falls). Not everyone lives in
N. Carolina where they freak at two inches of the stuff.

[Matthew Russotto]

Post by Keith

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I've certainly had to plow through 5 inches. 20 inches, I'm staying
home -- but so is WRX-man.

We had 24", 18", and 20", plus a few 2-4" falls over ten days last
December. Businesses may have been slowed down, but everyine went to work

On unplowed roads? Not many cars are going to make it through 24" of
new snow.

[Keith]

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Keith

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I've certainly had to plow through 5 inches. 20 inches, I'm staying
home -- but so is WRX-man.

We had 24", 18", and 20", plus a few 2-4" falls over ten days last
December. Businesses may have been slowed down, but everyine went to work

On unplowed roads? Not many cars are going to make it through 24" of
new snow.

24" of unplowed snow, not so easy. I've come home to well over a foot a
few times though. Even 5" is enough to stop most rice-burners. Once the
snow gets under the chasis/pan, you're walking!

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Keith

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Keith
We had 24", 18", and 20", plus a few 2-4" falls over ten days last
December. Businesses may have been slowed down, but everyine went to work

On unplowed roads? Not many cars are going to make it through 24" of
new snow.

24" of unplowed snow, not so easy. I've come home to well over a foot a
few times though. Even 5" is enough to stop most rice-burners. Once the
snow gets under the chasis/pan, you're walking!

And where do you live that this is a common occurrence?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Bernard Farquart]

Post by Keith
24" of unplowed snow, not so easy. I've come home to well over a foot a
few times though. Even 5" is enough to stop most rice-burners. Once the
snow gets under the chasis/pan, you're walking!

I recommend a nice International Harvester,
gets me through snow, mud, sidewalks and
most other obsticles pretty well.

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Keith

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I've certainly had to plow through 5 inches. 20 inches, I'm staying
home -- but so is WRX-man.

We had 24", 18", and 20", plus a few 2-4" falls over ten days last
December. Businesses may have been slowed down, but everyine went to work
(I did take my wife to work after the big falls). Not everyone lives in
N. Carolina where they freak at two inches of the stuff.

Nor does everyone live in Buffalo or wherever the hell you live either.

I made it to work just fine when the last time it snowed - although half
the office didn't. It was funny watching a 300ZX sliding backwards down
a freeway hill with its wheels spinning very fast the opposite
direction.

Yep, some people are idiots when it comes to driving in snow. That was
Houston though. Not much chance I'll be doing any driving in snow where
I live now either though.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Keith]

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I've certainly had to plow through 5 inches. 20 inches, I'm staying
home -- but so is WRX-man.

We had 24", 18", and 20", plus a few 2-4" falls over ten days last
December. Businesses may have been slowed down, but everyine went to work
(I did take my wife to work after the big falls). Not everyone lives in
N. Carolina where they freak at two inches of the stuff.

Nor does everyone live in Buffalo or wherever the hell you live either.

Of course not. If I lived in San Diego I wouldn't have a 4WD truck
either. What's your point? No, I don't live in Buffalo, rather a few
hundred miles to the North-East. If you think the only place it snows is
in Buffalo, you're more stupid than you appear.

Post by Mike Z. Helm
I made it to work just fine when the last time it snowed - although half
the office didn't. It was funny watching a 300ZX sliding backwards down
a freeway hill with its wheels spinning very fast the opposite
direction.

Good idea. THat 300ZX is exactly what I want to drive. No thanks! I'll
drive my 4WD.

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Yep, some people are idiots when it comes to driving in snow. That was
Houston though. Not much chance I'll be doing any driving in snow where
I live now either though.

Bully for you! I've always lived in snow-country. I simply got sick and
tired of not being able to go where (and when) it was needed. Getting
stuck when it's below zero is the absolute pits. Not going to work sounds
nice, until it sinks in that the same work has to be done whether one
shows up today or a week later. *Be prepared*, and that includes a 4WD, at
least it does for me.

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith
We had 24", 18", and 20", plus a few 2-4" falls over ten days last
December. Businesses may have been slowed down, but everyine went to work
(I did take my wife to work after the big falls). Not everyone lives in
N. Carolina where they freak at two inches of the stuff.

Nor does everyone live in Buffalo or wherever the hell you live either.

Of course not. If I lived in San Diego I wouldn't have a 4WD truck
either. What's your point?

As your mother to read it and explain it to you.

Post by Keith
No, I don't live in Buffalo, rather a few
hundred miles to the North-East. If you think the only place it snows is
in Buffalo, you're more stupid than you appear.

"or wherever the hell you live". Perhaps you need some meds for your
apparent ADD.

Get mother to read the first paragraph where you wrote "Not everyone
lives in NC"

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm
I made it to work just fine when the last time it snowed - although half
the office didn't. It was funny watching a 300ZX sliding backwards down
a freeway hill with its wheels spinning very fast the opposite
direction.

Good idea. THat 300ZX is exactly what I want to drive. No thanks! I'll
drive my 4WD.

And I was just fine in my FWD convertible - one of the few days I didn't
put the top down. I've never lived in "snow country" either, although I
have lived in the northern part of the US.

Are you saying you can't drive on a little snow without 4WD? Funny how
someone who has lived most of his life where it hardly ever snows
doesn't have a problem with driving on a little snow in my puny 2-door
FWD ragtop, but you, who have "always lived in snow-country" can't
handle it without overkill.

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Yep, some people are idiots when it comes to driving in snow. That was
Houston though. Not much chance I'll be doing any driving in snow where
I live now either though.

Bully for you! I've always lived in snow-country. I simply got sick and
tired of not being able to go where (and when) it was needed. Getting
stuck when it's below zero is the absolute pits. Not going to work sounds
nice, until it sinks in that the same work has to be done whether one
shows up today or a week later.

Nah, deadlines can be shifted, and I get paid either way - besides, I
could just as easily do it from home.

Post by Keith
*Be prepared*, and that includes a 4WD, at
least it does for me.

To quote you: "Bully for you!".

Why are you even going on about this with me? I've said before I don't
give a shit if you merely want an SUV, and you're making a huge deal
about it.

Grow the fuck up.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Harry K]

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Keith
We had 24", 18", and 20", plus a few 2-4" falls over ten days last
December. Businesses may have been slowed down, but everyine went to work
(I did take my wife to work after the big falls). Not everyone lives in
N. Carolina where they freak at two inches of the stuff.

Nor does everyone live in Buffalo or wherever the hell you live either.

Of course not. If I lived in San Diego I wouldn't have a 4WD truck
either. What's your point?

As your mother to read it and explain it to you.

Post by Keith
No, I don't live in Buffalo, rather a few
hundred miles to the North-East. If you think the only place it snows is
in Buffalo, you're more stupid than you appear.

"or wherever the hell you live". Perhaps you need some meds for your
apparent ADD.
Get mother to read the first paragraph where you wrote "Not everyone
lives in NC"

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm
I made it to work just fine when the last time it snowed - although half
the office didn't. It was funny watching a 300ZX sliding backwards down
a freeway hill with its wheels spinning very fast the opposite
direction.

Good idea. THat 300ZX is exactly what I want to drive. No thanks! I'll
drive my 4WD.

And I was just fine in my FWD convertible - one of the few days I didn't
put the top down. I've never lived in "snow country" either, although I
have lived in the northern part of the US.
Are you saying you can't drive on a little snow without 4WD? Funny how
someone who has lived most of his life where it hardly ever snows
doesn't have a problem with driving on a little snow in my puny 2-door
FWD ragtop, but you, who have "always lived in snow-country" can't
handle it without overkill.

Post by Keith

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Yep, some people are idiots when it comes to driving in snow. That was
Houston though. Not much chance I'll be doing any driving in snow where
I live now either though.

Bully for you! I've always lived in snow-country. I simply got sick and
tired of not being able to go where (and when) it was needed. Getting
stuck when it's below zero is the absolute pits. Not going to work sounds
nice, until it sinks in that the same work has to be done whether one
shows up today or a week later.

Nah, deadlines can be shifted, and I get paid either way - besides, I
could just as easily do it from home.

Post by Keith
*Be prepared*, and that includes a 4WD, at
least it does for me.

To quote you: "Bully for you!".
Why are you even going on about this with me? I've said before I don't
give a shit if you merely want an SUV, and you're making a huge deal
about it.
Grow the fuck up.

Exactly. Why do they always try to justify with bad reasons owning
one of them when a simple 'because I want one' is all that is needed.
As for getting to work when it snows, around here almost everyone
shows up during/after storms 4X, 2X, whatever. The ones claiming you
-need- 4x to get to work wind up with egg on their face as their
neighbor walks through the door after using his 2x. The mix of traffic
never changes. Those who drive 4X drive them good or bad conditions.

Harry K

[Mike Z. Helm]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 17:16:41 -0500, ***@grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I've certainly had to plow through 5 inches. 20 inches, I'm staying
home -- but so is WRX-man.

Well, I did say "most people". I've had to plow through 5 inches too,
but that was water. I once had a need to plow through about 20 inches
of water, but I just waited a couple of hours and watched some old lady
in a Jaguar prove that Jaguars aren't made for crossing through high
water.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Matthew Russotto]

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I've certainly had to plow through 5 inches. 20 inches, I'm staying
home -- but so is WRX-man.

Well, I did say "most people".

Most people who live in areas which often get snow will have to go
through 5 inches on occasion.

[Keith]

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Mike Z. Helm
(Matthew Russotto)

Post by Matthew Russotto

Post by Jason
There's no research left to be done there. People who can afford
SUVs clearly have extra cash which should be taken away.

If you think so, you should probably go into business selling them.

Post by Jason
to get through the snow. What bullshit. A little WRX will plow
through 20 inches of snow.

Not bloody likely.

Most people don't need to plow through 5 inches of snow, let alone 20
inches.

I've certainly had to plow through 5 inches. 20 inches, I'm staying
home -- but so is WRX-man.

Well, I did say "most people".

Most people who live in areas which often get snow will have to go
through 5 inches on occasion.

The five inches is the easy part. It's the 8-12" with ruts that's a tad
more difficult. Once the vahicle bottoms out, you're walking! ...not
nice when it's below zero!

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Keith

Post by Matthew Russotto
Most people who live in areas which often get snow will have to go
through 5 inches on occasion.

The five inches is the easy part. It's the 8-12" with ruts that's a tad
more difficult. Once the vahicle bottoms out, you're walking! ...not
nice when it's below zero!

And if you lived where I have lived, you'd claim you needed it for the
floods. And I bet you'd still get stuck in high-water.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Bobby The D

Post by Susan McIntosh
A 500% gas guzzling tax should be and must be imposed on large SUVs as they
have driven up the demand for oil supply and they have pumped more
pollution to the air shared by everyone.
Since the morons who spend $50K on a vehicle would not feel the pinch with
$3.00/gal price tag, the civilized folks must show these barbaric creatures
that their stupid and irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated.

Last I knew this was a free country and people could drive whatever
they wished. If you want to drive an anemic little sardine can like a
Metro or a Prius, go right ahead but if someone wants to drive a car
that DOESN't get good gas mileage it's their right too and the
government shouldn't interfere. If they bitch about gas prices later,
well that's too bad. I also don't think there should be any gov't
subsidy or tax break for driving a hybrid car either. If they're so
great, then there shouldn't be any need to subsidize them.

The gov't should stop subsidizing SUVs.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Bob Ward]

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by Bobby The D

Post by Susan McIntosh
A 500% gas guzzling tax should be and must be imposed on large SUVs as they
have driven up the demand for oil supply and they have pumped more
pollution to the air shared by everyone.
Since the morons who spend $50K on a vehicle would not feel the pinch with
$3.00/gal price tag, the civilized folks must show these barbaric creatures
that their stupid and irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated.

Last I knew this was a free country and people could drive whatever
they wished. If you want to drive an anemic little sardine can like a
Metro or a Prius, go right ahead but if someone wants to drive a car
that DOESN't get good gas mileage it's their right too and the
government shouldn't interfere. If they bitch about gas prices later,
well that's too bad. I also don't think there should be any gov't
subsidy or tax break for driving a hybrid car either. If they're so
great, then there shouldn't be any need to subsidize them.

The gov't should stop subsidizing SUVs.

You should stop beating your wife.

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Mike Z. Helm
The gov't should stop subsidizing SUVs.

and how does the government subsidize suv's?

[Don Klipstein]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
The gov't should stop subsidizing SUVs.

and how does the government subsidize suv's?

"Subsidize" may not be the proper word. But the gov't does give SUVs
regulatory favorability over cars.
Cars are regulated more than SUVs are for crash safety and fuel economy.

Then there's that tax issue. Although plenty point out the fact it's
not very significant, people did latch onto it as a symbol. Businesses
can deduct more for the expense on a vehicle if it weighs more than some
certain amount, even if it is obviously not a truck doing truck work.

- Don Klipstein (***@misty.com)

[Mike Z. Helm]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 15:50:16 +0000 (UTC), ***@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein)

Post by Don Klipstein

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
The gov't should stop subsidizing SUVs.

and how does the government subsidize suv's?

"Subsidize" may not be the proper word. But the gov't does give SUVs
regulatory favorability over cars.
Cars are regulated more than SUVs are for crash safety and fuel economy.
Then there's that tax issue. Although plenty point out the fact it's
not very significant,

Really? It sounded pretty friggin' significant to me. Explain why it's
not significant.

Post by Don Klipstein
people did latch onto it as a symbol. Businesses
can deduct more for the expense on a vehicle if it weighs more than some
certain amount, even if it is obviously not a truck doing truck work.

--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Really? It sounded pretty friggin' significant to me. Explain why it's
not significant.

why don't you explain why it's so important to you?

[Nate Nagel]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Really? It sounded pretty friggin' significant to me. Explain why it's
not significant.

why don't you explain why it's so important to you?

Well, it's just bad policy for starters. Why would I want my company to
give me an Excursion (because it's cheaper for them) when, say, a 300C
would do just as well and be more economical to boot.)

nate

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Really? It sounded pretty friggin' significant to me. Explain why it's
not significant.

why don't you explain why it's so important to you?

Well, it's just bad policy for starters. Why would I want my company to
give me an Excursion (because it's cheaper for them) when, say, a 300C
would do just as well and be more economical to boot.)

some companies and people do have a legitimate use for a large
vehicle, and yes some people do abuse the tax provisions, but why deny
people who do have legitimate use for the car a legitimate tax
deduction to prove a social point?

[Brandon Sommerville]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Really? It sounded pretty friggin' significant to me. Explain why it's
not significant.

why don't you explain why it's so important to you?

Well, it's just bad policy for starters. Why would I want my company to
give me an Excursion (because it's cheaper for them) when, say, a 300C
would do just as well and be more economical to boot.)

some companies and people do have a legitimate use for a large
vehicle, and yes some people do abuse the tax provisions, but why deny
people who do have legitimate use for the car a legitimate tax
deduction to prove a social point?

The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

[127.0.0.1]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

[Brandon Sommerville]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Where did I say that? There is no "one size fits all" solution, nor
should there be.

That being said, *if* a smaller vehicle would be more efficient for
the company, would the company buy that smaller vehicle if the tax
write off was significant enough to make the larger vehicle cheaper?

My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

[127.0.0.1]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

I'm not going to say that the write off isn't abused but to remove it
because of the abuses isn't fair to the companies that do need that
sized vehicle.

[Brandon Sommerville]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

I'm not going to say that the write off isn't abused but to remove it
because of the abuses isn't fair to the companies that do need that
sized vehicle.

What needs to happen is one of two things:

1) remove the write-off.
2) apply the write-off equally to all vehicles.

I'm partial to #2.

[Mike Z. Helm]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:23:44 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

I'm not going to say that the write off isn't abused but to remove it
because of the abuses isn't fair to the companies that do need that
sized vehicle.

1) remove the write-off.
2) apply the write-off equally to all vehicles.

yup - it's pretty simple.

Post by Brandon Sommerville
I'm partial to #2.

--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Keith]

Post by Brandon Sommerville

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

I'm not going to say that the write off isn't abused but to remove it
because of the abuses isn't fair to the companies that do need that
sized vehicle.

1) remove the write-off.
2) apply the write-off equally to all vehicles.
I'm partial to #2.

I agree. Allow the immediate write-off of *all* business expenses.
Bettter yet, don't tax corporate profits! They'll eventually get taxes as
income anyway. ...and only drive up costs.

[Nate Nagel]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

I'm not going to say that the write off isn't abused but to remove it
because of the abuses isn't fair to the companies that do need that
sized vehicle.

To *not* remove it is unfair, to everyone involved.

nate

[Robert Morein]

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

I'm not going to say that the write off isn't abused but to remove it
because of the abuses isn't fair to the companies that do need that
sized vehicle.

To *not* remove it is unfair, to everyone involved.
nate

Why do we need gas guzzling taxis?

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Nate Nagel
To *not* remove it is unfair, to everyone involved.

why?

[Mike Z. Helm]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Where did I say that? There is no "one size fits all" solution, nor
should there be.
That being said, *if* a smaller vehicle would be more efficient for
the company, would the company buy that smaller vehicle if the tax
write off was significant enough to make the larger vehicle cheaper?
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that to help
prop up automaker's profits?

If that's true, then it's a subsidy, "corporate welfare".

Post by Brandon Sommerville
I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that to help
prop up automaker's profits?

you're wrong

[Nate Nagel]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that to help
prop up automaker's profits?

you're wrong

Ooh, what a well reasoned argument. I'm convinced.

nate

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that to help
prop up automaker's profits?

you're wrong

Ooh, what a well reasoned argument. I'm convinced.

you're as bright as the other guy, eh? the reason for the deduction is
for businesses to recoup their investments faster, not so truck makers
can sell more trucks, the fact that others are abusing the deduction
is not reason enough to end the deduction, if the IRS was more
diligent in auditing there would be less of a problem.

[Nate Nagel]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that to help
prop up automaker's profits?

you're wrong

Ooh, what a well reasoned argument. I'm convinced.

you're as bright as the other guy, eh? the reason for the deduction is
for businesses to recoup their investments faster, not so truck makers
can sell more trucks, the fact that others are abusing the deduction
is not reason enough to end the deduction, if the IRS was more
diligent in auditing there would be less of a problem.

So why not enact similar breaks for company owned passenger cars?

nate

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that to help
prop up automaker's profits?

you're wrong

Ooh, what a well reasoned argument. I'm convinced.

you're as bright as the other guy, eh? the reason for the deduction is
for businesses to recoup their investments faster, not so truck makers
can sell more trucks, the fact that others are abusing the deduction
is not reason enough to end the deduction, if the IRS was more
diligent in auditing there would be less of a problem.

So why not enact similar breaks for company owned passenger cars?

they have their own set of deductions

[Brandon Sommerville]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1
you're as bright as the other guy, eh? the reason for the deduction is
for businesses to recoup their investments faster, not so truck makers
can sell more trucks, the fact that others are abusing the deduction
is not reason enough to end the deduction, if the IRS was more
diligent in auditing there would be less of a problem.

So why not enact similar breaks for company owned passenger cars?

they have their own set of deductions

Not at all comparable.

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that to help
prop up automaker's profits?

you're wrong

Ooh, what a well reasoned argument. I'm convinced.

you're as bright as the other guy, eh? the reason for the deduction is
for businesses to recoup their investments faster, not so truck makers
can sell more trucks, the fact that others are abusing the deduction
is not reason enough to end the deduction, if the IRS was more
diligent in auditing there would be less of a problem.

So why not enact similar breaks for company owned passenger cars?

they have their own set of deductions

separate and unequal
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that to help
prop up automaker's profits?

you're wrong

Ooh, what a well reasoned argument. I'm convinced.

you're as bright as the other guy, eh? the reason for the deduction is
for businesses to recoup their investments faster, not so truck makers
can sell more trucks, the fact that others are abusing the deduction
is not reason enough to end the deduction, if the IRS was more
diligent in auditing there would be less of a problem.

It's all perfectly legal - an IRS audit wouldn't necessarily turn up any
wrongdoing on the part of someone who chose an Excursion over a Lincoln
Town Car just so he could qualify for the tax break.


--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of that to help
prop up automaker's profits?

you're wrong

Okay, I very well could be wrong.

What was the point of it then?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Bob Ward]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Where did I say that? There is no "one size fits all" solution, nor
should there be.
That being said, *if* a smaller vehicle would be more efficient for
the company, would the company buy that smaller vehicle if the tax
write off was significant enough to make the larger vehicle cheaper?
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

You don't think that the corporate bean counters can do a cost-benefit
analysis and determine which purchase represents the best overall
price for the company? I think you are pronouncing judgement without
being in possession of all the facts.

[Nate Nagel]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Where did I say that? There is no "one size fits all" solution, nor
should there be.
That being said, *if* a smaller vehicle would be more efficient for
the company, would the company buy that smaller vehicle if the tax
write off was significant enough to make the larger vehicle cheaper?
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

You don't think that the corporate bean counters can do a cost-benefit
analysis and determine which purchase represents the best overall
price for the company? I think you are pronouncing judgement without
being in possession of all the facts.

What is best for the company is *skewed* by the tax code. Surely you
can see that?

nate

[Lance Lamboy]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Where did I say that? There is no "one size fits all" solution, nor
should there be.
That being said, *if* a smaller vehicle would be more efficient for the
company, would the company buy that smaller vehicle if the tax write off
was significant enough to make the larger vehicle cheaper?
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies are
being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax laws. I
don't have a problem with a tax write off for business vehicles, I have
a problem with a write off that encourages pollution and consumption for
no reason.

You don't think that the corporate bean counters can do a cost-benefit
analysis and determine which purchase represents the best overall price
for the company? I think you are pronouncing judgement without being in
possession of all the facts.

I am very confident that the corporate bean counters can do a cost-benefit
analysis. I am very confident that the corporate bean counters will
include the deduction in their cost-benefit analysis. I am confident that
this will influence at least some bean-counters to choose bigger vehicles
than they would otherwise have chosen.

[Brandon Sommerville]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:34:55 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Where did I say that? There is no "one size fits all" solution, nor
should there be.
That being said, *if* a smaller vehicle would be more efficient for
the company, would the company buy that smaller vehicle if the tax
write off was significant enough to make the larger vehicle cheaper?
My guess is no because it doesn't make sense financially. Companies
are being *encouraged* to buy bigger vehicles than they need by tax
laws. I don't have a problem with a tax write off for business
vehicles, I have a problem with a write off that encourages pollution
and consumption for no reason.

You don't think that the corporate bean counters can do a cost-benefit
analysis and determine which purchase represents the best overall
price for the company? I think you are pronouncing judgement without
being in possession of all the facts.

If part of the cost/benefit includes getting the vehicle for almost
free don't you think it's going to have a significant impact on the
purchase decision? Consumption differences can easily be offset by a
$75k tax break.

[127.0.0.1]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:30:45 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
If part of the cost/benefit includes getting the vehicle for almost
free don't you think it's going to have a significant impact on the
purchase decision? Consumption differences can easily be offset by a
$75k tax break.

75k buys a lot of fuel

[Brandon Sommerville]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:30:45 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
If part of the cost/benefit includes getting the vehicle for almost
free don't you think it's going to have a significant impact on the
purchase decision? Consumption differences can easily be offset by a
$75k tax break.

75k buys a lot of fuel

Which is why the truck is more affordable than a comparably priced car
with double the mileage.

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Can't you believe that some businesses don't?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Can't you believe that some businesses don't?

learn to read for comprehension

[Lance Lamboy]

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Can't you believe that some businesses don't?

Not in Dick Cheney's America. What are you, a Frenchie? Every red-blooded
Texan needs the absolute biggest vehicle there is. If the tax deduction
were applied equally to smaller vehicles, then French people benefit.

Post by Mike Z. Helm
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[127.0.0.1]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:58:32 -0400, "Lance Lamboy"

Post by Lance Lamboy

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Can't you believe that some businesses don't?

Not in Dick Cheney's America. What are you, a Frenchie? Every red-blooded
Texan needs the absolute biggest vehicle there is. If the tax deduction
were applied equally to smaller vehicles, then French people benefit.

another asshole chimes in

[Lance Lamboy]

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:58:32 -0400, "Lance Lamboy"

Post by Lance Lamboy

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by 127.0.0.1
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:13:54 -0400, Brandon Sommerville

Post by Brandon Sommerville
The problem isn't the fact that there's a tax deduction. The problem
is that the tax deduction encourages businesses to buy a larger less
efficient vehicle when a smaller one would be better for the business
if the tax deduction were applied equally.

how do you know that this is universally true? can't you believe that
some businesses do need a larger vehicle?

Can't you believe that some businesses don't?

Not in Dick Cheney's America. What are you, a Frenchie? Every
red-blooded Texan needs the absolute biggest vehicle there is. If the
tax deduction were applied equally to smaller vehicles, then French
people benefit.

another asshole chimes in

I agree, Dick Cheney is a major league asshole.

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Really? It sounded pretty friggin' significant to me. Explain why it's
not significant.

why don't you explain why it's so important to you?

Well, it's just bad policy for starters. Why would I want my company to
give me an Excursion (because it's cheaper for them) when, say, a 300C
would do just as well and be more economical to boot.)

some companies and people do have a legitimate use for a large
vehicle, and yes some people do abuse the tax provisions, but why deny
people who do have legitimate use for the car a legitimate tax
deduction to prove a social point?

Well, by that logic, why not give me a legitimate tax deduction for all
my income?

After all, if it were legal and legitimate, why would you want to deny
that to me even if it didn't apply to anyone else?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[127.0.0.1]

Post by Mike Z. Helm
After all, if it were legal and legitimate, why would you want to deny
that to me even if it didn't apply to anyone else?

stop making yourself look so silly

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
After all, if it were legal and legitimate, why would you want to deny
that to me even if it didn't apply to anyone else?

stop making yourself look so silly

Anyone still reading this thread?

Who looks sillier? Me or 127.0.0.1?
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[Nate Nagel]

Post by Mike Z. Helm

Post by 127.0.0.1

Post by Mike Z. Helm
After all, if it were legal and legitimate, why would you want to deny
that to me even if it didn't apply to anyone else?

stop making yourself look so silly

Anyone still reading this thread?
Who looks sillier? Me or 127.0.0.1?

After reading his last few posts I think it's time to invoke the old
canard about the resemblance between a Usenet argument and the Special
Olympics.

My vote, quit now before you get some on ya. You're not going to change
his mind, such that it is.

nate

[Mike Z. Helm]

Post by Nate Nagel

Post by Mike Z. Helm
Anyone still reading this thread?
Who looks sillier? Me or 127.0.0.1?

After reading his last few posts I think it's time to invoke the old
canard about the resemblance between a Usenet argument and the Special
Olympics.
My vote, quit now before you get some on ya. You're not going to change
his mind, such that it is.

You're absolutely right.
--
There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday

[DTJ]

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 23:13:03 GMT, Susan McIntosh <***@alterenergy.org>
wrote:

snip of a completely bullshit post...

I take it you are one of those democrat employees who are trying to
find ways to fend off Bush in the election by lying about everything
in the hopes that intelligent people will believe you.

[f***@hotmail.com]

Post by Susan McIntosh
As the reality of the world oil supply is becoming more transparent - even
to idiots like Ford Excursion and GM Suburban drivers, it only makes sense
to make it a law to make those idiots to share the cost burden.
A 500% gas guzzling tax should be and must be imposed on large SUVs as they
have driven up the demand for oil supply and they have pumped more
pollution to the air shared by everyone.
Since the morons who spend $50K on a vehicle would not feel the pinch with
$3.00/gal price tag, the civilized folks must show these barbaric creatures
that their stupid and irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated.
In addition to 500% gas guzzling tax, the full-size SUV owners should be
doing community work on the weekend such as cleaning public restrooms to
help them appreciate who they really are: the excrement of the society
regardless of their hefty bank accounts.
For those of us who feel the pinch at the gas pumps, we must realize that
the voracious consumption of gasoline by those bastards SUV owners is a
part of the cause for the high gas price AND your breathing difficulty.
The Bush administration is encouraging more super-size SUV on the road to
keep its friends on the executive boards of the auto industry happy. So, if
you consider super-size SUVs like the ugly Hummers as the public enemy No.
1, Bush and his unscrupulous cronies are also public eneny number one.

The faster we use available petroleum resources, the quicker prices
will rise and the less attractive gas-guzzlers will be. Remember, too,
that many of the other countries of the world now want to use energy
at the same rate as we use it in the US. There was a time when
extravagant use of energy was an American birthright. Not anymore.
Global competition for energy resources has intensified and will
continue to do so. Iraq is just the beginning. The question for voters
in the US is how much are they willing to spend in terms of resources
and lives lost to control overseas energy supplies? More importantly,
when do we start talking seriously about alternatives.

[Sing sing]

Post by f***@hotmail.com
The faster we use available petroleum resources, the quicker prices
will rise and the less attractive gas-guzzlers will be. Remember, too,
that many of the other countries of the world now want to use energy
at the same rate as we use it in the US. There was a time when
extravagant use of energy was an American birthright. Not anymore.
Global competition for energy resources has intensified and will
continue to do so. Iraq is just the beginning. The question for voters
in the US is how much are they willing to spend in terms of resources
and lives lost to control overseas energy supplies? More importantly,
when do we start talking seriously about alternatives.

ANY ONE SMELL THE CHINESE AROUND THE CORNER???

[Bernard Farquart]

Post by Sing sing
ANY ONE SMELL THE CHINESE AROUND THE CORNER???

Why would I, do they need a shower?

[Skorpion]

Post by Susan McIntosh
As the reality of the world oil supply is becoming more transparent - even
to idiots like Ford Excursion and GM Suburban drivers, it only makes sense
to make it a law to make those idiots to share the cost burden.
A 500% gas guzzling tax should be and must be imposed on large SUVs as they
have driven up the demand for oil supply and they have pumped more
pollution to the air shared by everyone.
Since the morons who spend $50K on a vehicle would not feel the pinch with
$3.00/gal price tag, the civilized folks must show these barbaric creatures
that their stupid and irresponsible behavior would not be tolerated.

Funny, Kerry owns a SUV, or at least his "family" does, LOL.

[John David Galt]

2.5 on the Troll-O-Meter.