BILL BANNING ASSAULT PISTOL IS INTRODUCED
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Bill banning assault pistol is introduced
By Donna de la Cruz
Associated Press
The Philadelphia Daily News
Thursday, March 3, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Five-SeveN pistol is small enough to fit
into your pocket but packs a big punch - its bullets can
penetrate a bulletproof vest. One of the weapons was
recently pulled off the streets of Camden County, N.J.,
and New Jersey and New York lawmakers want them out of
the hands of the public for good.
New Jersey Democratic Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank
Lautenberg, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Eliot
Engel, D-N.Y., on Thursday introduced a bill that would
make it illegal for anyone except a police officer or
military official to possess the assault pistol.
In November, the Homeland Security Department issued an
"Officer Safety Alert" regarding the pistol with the
headline "body armor defeating handgun." The alert said
that the Trumbull, Conn., police department had seized
such a pistol and noted that its bullets were "advertised
as being able to penetrate 48 layers of Kevlar at 50
meters."
The lawmakers said there is no legitimate reason for
members of the general public to own the gun - you
wouldn't buy it for hunting, for example.
"This is not a Second Amendment issue," Corzine said.
"Who needs one of these? The only reason is for
violence."
The Protect Law Enforcement Armor (PLEA) Act would ban
the sale, purchase and use of the handgun and its
ammunition by anyone other than a police officer or
military official. The bill would also prohibit the gun
and bullets from being made in the United States.
Camden County Prosecutor Vincent Sarubbi urged lawmakers
to support the bill, calling it a test case.
"If we let this one slip by, the flood gates will open,"
Sarubbi said.
A Five-SeveN gun was found on an alleged drug dealer in
December during a drug investigation in Camden County,
Sarubbi said. The gun had been purchased in Philadelphia
using a false name and false Social Security number, he
said.
Peter Newsham, the assistant chief of the Washington,
D.C., Metropolitan Police, said his department recently
tested the gun and it penetrated a Kevlar vest.
"The danger of this gun is that it can be concealed," he
said. He, too, urged Congress to support the bill.
Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence, challenged the National Rifle
Association to defend the pistol, even daring NRA chief
executive Wayne LaPierre to don a bulletproof vest to
have the pistol tested.
"It is pathetic to see the gun control lobby make
hysterical statements to resurrect their failed political
agenda," the NRA said in a written statement. "According
to BATFE,this armor-piercing ammunition is only available
to the military and police."
The pistol is made by the Belgian company FN Herstal,
which has a U.S. division in McLean, Va. Richard DeMilt,
director of sales and marketing for the U.S. division,
said the pistol has been approved by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the only ammunition
available to the public are cartridges approved by the
agency.
The bullets that can penetrate Kevlar vests are sold only
to law enforcement and military agencies, and that
ammunition is only released and shipped from a U.S.
Customs-controlled warehouse, DeMilt said.
That information was little comfort to Bryan Miller,
executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, a group that
seeks to reduce gun violence. His brother, an FBI agent,
was killed along with two other agents when a gunman
burst into their Washington, D.C., office in 1994 and
opened fire with an assault weapon.
"There's no such thing as closure," Miller said at the
news conference. "Police officers should not have to face
this kind of gun."
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/11045796.htm
- - - - - - -
Here's the Associated Press' take on the story. This is
the first that I've seen about "the Homeland Security
Department issued an "Officer Safety Alert" regarding the
pistol with the headline "body armor defeating handgun."
The name of the bill also caught my eye.
"The Protect Law Enforcement Armor (PLEA) Act would ban
the sale, purchase and use of the handgun and its
ammunition by anyone other than a police officer or
military official."
Here's what the BATF & E had to say about the FN 5.7
(Fabrique Nationale) pistol is a semiautomatic pistol in
5.7 X 28
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329989/posts
Here's a list of how senators voted on "Purpose: To
expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to
require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for
the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor."
last year. Get the word out, please.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00028
Posted on 03/04/2005 10:19:40 AM PST by neverdem
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Forwarded message
>
> Bill banning assault pistol is introduced
>
> By Donna de la Cruz
> Associated Press
> The Philadelphia Daily News
> Thursday, March 3, 2005
>
> WASHINGTON - The Five-SeveN pistol is small enough to fit
> into your pocket but packs a big punch - its bullets can
> penetrate a bulletproof vest. One of the weapons was
> recently pulled off the streets of Camden County, N.J.,
> and New Jersey and New York lawmakers want them out of
> the hands of the public for good.
>
Fork it. Let's do something instead about assault vehicles like those
6000 pounds SUVs all the psychos drive 90 mph.
You Know Who
wrote:
>Forwarded message
>
>Bill banning assault pistol is introduced
Vedic Astrologers Drink Cow Piss
http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/hindutwa/htv001/htva0009.html
You know, you fuckers are so weird, I couldn't make up a headline like
that if I tried.
What the hell is *with* you people, anyway?
You Know Who
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It *is* an SUV. Read the article. It says it was "pulled off the
streets..."
mslu123@aol.com Lucile Wilson
are SUV's. People love them and you need to educate yourself about
their driving records. People kill...Cars DONT.
Larry Graham
What other vehicals are there that can haul you lard assed pork
consumers from block to block?
Captain Compassion
wrote:
>Forwarded message
>
>Bill banning assault pistol is introduced
>
It's not the pistol as much as the ammo. There are other guns besides
the Five-SeveN. There are other guns. There are other handguns that
shoot 5.7x28mm ball ammo. such as the P7000 pistol, by Q.S. PROGETTO
MECCANICA, S.a.S. There are other pistols that can handle ball type
ammo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."
-- Bill Clinton (January 27, 1998 State of the Union Address)
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>WASHINGTON - The Five-SeveN pistol is small enough to fit
>into your pocket but packs a big punch - its bullets can
>penetrate a bulletproof vest.
So can a .357 magnum.
>One of the weapons was
>recently pulled off the streets of Camden County, N.J.,
>and New Jersey and New York lawmakers want them out of
>the hands of the public for good.
Good lord, not the idiots in NJ who think they are qualified to run
ballistics tests on firearms. The ATF has already spoken on this
issue and they have stated categoricaly for the record that all of the
civilian ammo for this weapon is NOT armor piercing.
>In November, the Homeland Security Department issued an
>"Officer Safety Alert" regarding the pistol with the
>headline "body armor defeating handgun." The alert said
>that the Trumbull, Conn., police department had seized
>such a pistol and noted that its bullets were "advertised
>as being able to penetrate 48 layers of Kevlar at 50
>meters."
And they also advertise that you need to be military or law
enforcement to buy the armor piercing ammunition for this gun. The
bullets they siezed were NOT the armor piercing ones, just regular
lead bullets with roughly the same ability to penetrate a ballistic
vest as the .357 magnum round.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
Jim Bianchi
>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:00:32 GMT, use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
>wrote:
>>Forwarded message
>>
>>Bill banning assault pistol is introduced
>>
>It's not the pistol as much as the ammo. There are other guns besides
>the Five-SeveN. There are other guns. There are other handguns that
>shoot 5.7x28mm ball ammo. such as the P7000 pistol, by Q.S. PROGETTO
>MECCANICA, S.a.S. There are other pistols that can handle ball type
>ammo.
The old 7.63mm Mauser broomhandle can also waltz through a lot of
the soft body armor. That ammo (same effective size) is readily avail too,
as are the pistols -- though not as 'new' they can still be had. Not to
mention that, last I heard, the common .22lr from, say, an 8" bbl pistol
would also defeat a lot of the non-military Kevlar.
"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary, and those who don't."
David Halpern
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:faUGe5436acIZa@JboAc...
Yeah the Democrats increased their margins last election in the House and
Senate hence they have the mandate to get all their gun control dreams
passed. lol.
Hello
wrote:
> WASHINGTON - The Five-SeveN pistol is small enough to fit
> into your pocket but packs a big punch - its bullets can
> penetrate a bulletproof vest. One of the weapons was
> recently pulled off the streets of Camden County, N.J.,
If it was one, was it pulled off the street? Was it in pieces, being "on
the streets?" Are guns ever taken from aywhere but "the streets?" Such
hollow emotionalism.
> and New Jersey and New York lawmakers want them out of
> the hands of the public for good.
I want lawmaking power out of the hands of New Jersey and New York
lawmakers, for good.
> New Jersey Democratic Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank
> Lautenberg, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Eliot
> Engel, D-N.Y., on Thursday introduced a bill that would
> make it illegal for anyone except a police officer or
> military official to possess the assault pistol.
So there's one class of citizens with superior rights?
Anyway, there's nothing magical about the gun. It's just a regular
semiauto handgun. Far more powerful guns out there.
Hello
Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
that can't fit in a two-door?
Ian MacLure
> Forwarded message
>
> Bill banning assault pistol is introduced
[snip]
> New Jersey Democratic Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank
> Lautenberg, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Eliot
> Engel, D-N.Y., on Thursday introduced a bill that would
> make it illegal for anyone except a police officer or
> military official to possess the assault pistol.
And I'm sure that the legislative agenda of the
Joisey and New York Senatorial delegations are
at the top of the Senate Majority Leader's to-do
list. They'll be lucky to get gas passed in this
Congress.
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
fiend999
Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
For starters, anyone with more than two kids under whatever age that
booster seats are no longer required will need at least a mini-van if
not an SUV of some kind...... extended family members or friends going
to dinner (or would you rather have us take 2 or more vehicles?)...
pets... camping gear.... building and landscaping materials for my home
(or shoudl I make several trips or maybe pay for delivery in an even
bigger gas guzzling truck?)...large pieces of furniture I often acquire
at estate sales and then re-sell... several bicycles - they don't make
very many 4 bike racks that don't require a trailer hitch mount, and
that many won't fit on a roof rack on a 2 door....
But I will say this - I do suspect that most drivers of ridiculously
huge SUVs like an Expedition or Suburban have much more vehicle than
they need. I don't imagine that anyone who is not in combat really
needs an H2 either.
--
cteas...@gmail.com
into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them
the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish
back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty. Whoever
has ears to hear, let him hear." Didymos Judas Thomas
In Christ's love
Carol T
DeepSea
dontspam...@newsguy.com:
I agree with you in principle and most detailsof your post. I disagree
with your assessment of the H2. The H2 is basically a soccer mom SUV with
some HMMWV engineering features and styling, with a price tag to boot. Its
actually smaller than the Suburban and Expedition in terms of volume and
wheelbase, and has the same max gross vehicle weight as the Suburban. It
is very capable off-road, but it is very much more expensive than other
vehicles that are just as (if not more) capable offroad. Having been a
driver and a passenger in HMMWVs, H1s and H2s, my opinion is that an H2 is
little more than a marketing effort to bring the styling and image of the
H1 into a lower price range - the H2 retail price is in the neighborhood of
60% less than an H1. I believe the H2 is more about style and image than
anything else because most of the H2's capabilities/features etc can be had
for a lot less $. A combat vehicle it aint!.
--
DS
Joe Ellis
Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
Not that you deserve a reply, nameless twit...
1 2x6 foot, 2 3.5x4 foot, 1 2.5x4 foot, and 1 2x3.5 foot model railroad
modules... plus associated gear, with more on the way.
A 7 foot fishing rod case, two 5 foot cases, three tackle boxes, a 17
foot canoe, paddles, life jackets, and tent camping gear for 4.
A keyboard, stand, mics, amp, alto sax, tenor sax and baritone sax.
Each group of things plus as many as 4 people.
Just because you don't have a life away from the keyboard doesn't mean
other people don't.
--
Joe Ellis
RD Sandman
2X4s and a motorcycle.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
RD Sandman
> I agree with you in principle and most detailsof your post. I disagree
> with your assessment of the H2. The H2 is basically a soccer mom SUV with
> some HMMWV engineering features and styling, with a price tag to boot. Its
> actually smaller than the Suburban and Expedition in terms of volume and
> wheelbase, and has the same max gross vehicle weight as the Suburban. It
> is very capable off-road, but it is very much more expensive than other
> vehicles that are just as (if not more) capable offroad. Having been a
> driver and a passenger in HMMWVs, H1s and H2s, my opinion is that an H2 is
> little more than a marketing effort to bring the styling and image of the
> H1 into a lower price range - the H2 retail price is in the neighborhood of
> 60% less than an H1. I believe the H2 is more about style and image than
> anything else because most of the H2's capabilities/features etc can be had
> for a lot less $. A combat vehicle it aint!.
That makes it an "assault vehicle" as it is simply a cosmetic look-alike of
a real military vehicle. For those who really wish to drive a real Hummer,
I am sure that there are some openings in Iraq. ;)
RD Sandman
You don't really expect those anti-gunners to think things through very
carefully......or to be capable of doing so.
Gray Ghost
news:1110006647.a213bafb34ea6713e2edf205585e8ca9@teranews:
What fucking business is it of yours what I drive? If you busy body
assholes continue to want to insert yourselves into other peoples lives,
eventually we will insert ourselves into yours. Once. And then enjoy the
peace. If that sounds like a threat of some sort, your reading
comprehension is excellent. Butt out of my life and I'll butt out of
yours. Butt into my life enough and I'll swat you like an annnoying fly.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) posted:
Are you not contradicting yourself
by asking him about his business?
fiend999
<deep_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I knew, this being usenet, that someone would take me to task for
implying that the H2 was combat ready :) Mostly I said "H2" because I
was hesitant to use the phrase "really needs a Hummer".
I have noticed a buttload of H2s roaming the'burbs lately. I assumed
that meant that they are being offered at a more reasonable price
point. They do seem like a waste. I usually tend to go for function
over style.
--
Why vote republican?
Can someone answer this without saying something like "because they
aren't democrats", "they aren't gonna (can't) get blowjobs in the
whitehouse" or "I don't care for homersekshuls and their ay-jen-duh"?
Dr. Jai Maharaj
fiend999 <dontspam...@newsguy.com> posted:
>
> Why vote republican?
>
> Can someone answer this without saying something like "because they
> aren't democrats", "they aren't gonna (can't) get blowjobs in the
> whitehouse" or "I don't care for homersekshuls and their ay-jen-duh"?
"Why vote republican?" in which year?
r...@toad.rmkhome.com
:I agree with you in principle and most detailsof your post. I disagree
:with your assessment of the H2. The H2 is basically a soccer mom SUV with
:some HMMWV engineering features and styling, with a price tag to boot. Its
:actually smaller than the Suburban and Expedition in terms of volume and
:wheelbase, and has the same max gross vehicle weight as the Suburban. It
:is very capable off-road, but it is very much more expensive than other
:vehicles that are just as (if not more) capable offroad. Having been a
:driver and a passenger in HMMWVs, H1s and H2s, my opinion is that an H2 is
:little more than a marketing effort to bring the styling and image of the
:H1 into a lower price range - the H2 retail price is in the neighborhood of
:60% less than an H1. I believe the H2 is more about style and image than
:anything else because most of the H2's capabilities/features etc can be had
:for a lot less $. A combat vehicle it aint!.
The H2 is built on the Suburban platform. It's more top heavy than the
suburban. And it is too wide for mountain trails where only a jeep can
go. It looks more like an armored bank truck than a military vehicle.
A good, used Unimog is much better.
--
Rick Kelly r...@rmkhome.com
<http://www.rmkhome.com/>
<http://rkba.rmkhome.com/>
Asmodeus
> But I will say this - I do suspect that most drivers of ridiculously
> huge SUVs like an Expedition or Suburban have much more vehicle than
> they need.
What I may or may not need is none of your, or the government's,
goddamned business, now, is it.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || The Right War
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || The Right Time
/ \ AND POSTINGS || The Right President
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>> And they also advertise that you need to be military or law
>> enforcement to buy the armor piercing ammunition for this gun. The
>> bullets they siezed were NOT the armor piercing ones, just regular
>> lead bullets with roughly the same ability to penetrate a ballistic
>> vest as the .357 magnum round.
>
>You don't really expect those anti-gunners to think things through very
>carefully......or to be capable of doing so.
As a general rule, no. I'm just doing my part to combat FUD (fear,
uncertainty, doubt) that might confuse anyone else who doesn't already
know about the Five seveN pistol.
I tend to aim my informative posts towards any fence sitting lurkers
out there. We both know full well that posting to the anti-gunners
themselves, while often entertaining, won't change their minds. :)
Fbob
"Hello" <nob...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1110006647.a213bafb34ea6713e2edf205585e8ca9@teranews...
Since I can afford an SUV and transporting my family in one makes them
safer, that's what I'm going to drive. Why would I choose to put myself and
my family in a less safe vehicle if I have a choice? Besides that, I have
never seen any vehicle crash into another vehicle all by itself. Every
collision is caused by driver error, not vehicle error. If you want to stay
safe in what ever vehicle you are in, become a more defensive driver. I've
been driving for 38 years and have never been in a vehicle collision.
As a matter of fact, in my state, law enforcement no longer uses the term
'automobile accident' since there are no 'accidents'. A vehicle colliding
with another vehicle or an object is the result of driver error or
carelessness. There are no accidents.
Fbob
"Hello" <nob...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1110006647.a213bafb34ea6713e2edf205585e8ca9@teranews...
Why don't you try towing a 20 foot livestock trailer with your Pinto? Let's
see you get 600 pounds of grain in the trunk or a dozen 3x6 corrugated
roofing panels in the back seat. Besides that, you are living in the wrong
country if you want to base ownership on 'need' rather than 'choice'. I'd
still own a couple of SUVs even if I didn't have a 'need' for them. You know
why? Because they are safer. If some assbag in a Pinto decides to move into
the same physical space that my vehicle is currently occupying, I want to
make sure that myself and my family have a better chance of surviving.
If you want to feel safer on the road, I'd suggest that you go purchase an
SUV. Kind of foolish to drive around in a vehicle that you don't feel is one
of the safest methods of transport, isn't it? Why not change your situation
rather than whine about everyone else's?
You Know Who
<hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>"Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>
>> Since I can afford an SUV and transporting my family in one makes
>> them safer,
>
>SUVs aren't safer.
Big ones are.
dwacon
be introducing his own assault pistol?
--
Paris Hilton uses one of these...
http://tinyurl.com/z6uc
steve miller
wrotD:
>>Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
>>makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
>>that can't fit in a two-door?
>
>Not that you deserve a reply, nameless twit...
>
>1 2x6 foot, 2 3.5x4 foot, 1 2.5x4 foot, and 1 2x3.5 foot model railroad
>modules... plus associated gear, with more on the way.
A 27 inch flat screen TV, in the box, in a snow storm. Car doors don't
open wide enough, the trunk won't close around it.
>A 7 foot fishing rod case, two 5 foot cases, three tackle boxes, a 17
>foot canoe, paddles, life jackets, and tent camping gear for 4.
Enough books and chapbooks to stock a worldcon table in Toronto -- six
papercases of chapbooks, 6 cases of hardback books, several cases of
soft cover books, an ice chest carrying food and prescription
medicines, several long tubes carrying banners, a boom box -- and two
large pieces of luggage (carrying two weeks worth of clothes for two
people). Also a repair kit, a first aid kit, three gallons of
windshield washer fluid, and a handcart.
>A keyboard, stand, mics, amp, alto sax, tenor sax and baritone sax.
6 15 inch computer monitors, six tower computers, several instructors.
>Each group of things plus as many as 4 people.
Two people and four cats, each cat in it's own carrier, in the snow.
>Just because you don't have a life away from the keyboard doesn't mean
>other people don't.
Check.
Steve
Crystal Soldier on sale worldwide
Chapbook special at http://www.korval.com/srmcat2.htm
Local Custom audiobook from Buzzy Multimedia
--
David Dyer-Bennet
> If you want to feel safer on the road, I'd suggest that you go purchase an
> SUV. Kind of foolish to drive around in a vehicle that you don't feel is one
> of the safest methods of transport, isn't it? Why not change your situation
> rather than whine about everyone else's?
I think you've precisely captured the situation. People driving SUVs
*feel* safer. In fact, they're not any safer; the rollover rate is so
high that they may be in more danger.
Also, of course, the "I'm safer, so fuck the rest of you assholes"
attitude is endemic among SUV drivers, which is why they're pretty
uniformly hated by everybody else on the road.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Rocco Prestia
Nisarel wrote:
>
> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>
> > Since I can afford an SUV and transporting my family in one makes
> > them safer,
>
> SUVs aren't safer.
Sure they are. Ever see who survives when an Expedition hits a
Volkswagon?
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Asmodeus <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> posted:
> fiend999 <dontspam...@newsguy.com> wrote in news:050320050950293750%
> dontspam...@newsguy.com:
>
> > But I will say this - I do suspect that most drivers of ridiculously
> > huge SUVs like an Expedition or Suburban have much more vehicle than
> > they need.
> What I may or may not need is none of your, or the government's,
> goddamned business, now, is it.
If your needs and wants have an effect on, or are
related to society then they are others' business too.
Asmodeus
> If your needs and wants have an effect on, or are
> related to society then they are others' business too.
Wrong, jackoff.
You Know Who
wrote:
That's where you are wrong, or cow-urine-drinking one.
It's none of my business that you go through more pork ribs on one of
your drunken weekends than most people go through in a lifetime.
Fbob
"Nisarel" <hostl...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1110125574.635f94962133727bf9df228a73b30100@teranews...
> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>
>> Since I can afford an SUV and transporting my family in one makes
>> them safer,
>
According to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers SUVs are safer.
Occupant fatality rate per 100,000 crashes of registered vehicles in 2001
Cars 12.17
SUVs 6.34
Pickups 9.25
http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/suvsafety.pdf
>
Fbob
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:m2br9ws...@gw.dd-b.net...
So if the safety issue is a moot point, what's all the power whining about
from drivers of cars? If the fatality rate is virtually the same then the
drivers of cars should be focused primarily on avoiding ANY crash rather
than their obsession with crashing into an SUV.
Also, the "I'm safer, so fuck the rest of you assholes" wasn't generated by
SUV owners. It actually originated from the owners of cars who assumed that
in collisions with SUVs, they suffer a higher percentage of injury and/or
fatality. If the statistics others have posted here are correct, there is no
discernable difference between SUV and automobile injury/fatality rates.
On a personal note, I own two SUVs, a mid sized pickup, and a car, and I
definitely feel safer in an SUV but I've never had a collision so I can't
say that it's a false feeling of security or not. The trick is to never have
to find out. Defensive driving is the key. There are no accidents. Two
vehicles coming together in the same space is ALWAYS caused by human error
which means that it is ALWAYS preventable.
Keith F. Lynch
> According to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers SUVs are safer.
> Occupant fatality rate per 100,000 crashes of registered vehicles in 2001
> Cars 12.17
> SUVs 6.34
> Pickups 9.25
I'm not taking any position on whether SUVs are safer than cars, but I
will point out that it's logically possible for SUVs to be less safe
per passenger-mile even if they're safer per *crash*.
For instance jet planes have a *very* high rate of fatalities per
crash. Yet they are the safest vehicle around per passenger-mile.
Well, ok, there is one vehicle which is even safer per passenger-mile
than jet planes: the Space Shuttle. Yes, even though two of the five
exploded in flames, killing everyone onboard. Aren't statistics fun?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Dyer-Bennet
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:m2br9ws...@gw.dd-b.net...
>> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> writes:
>>
>>> If you want to feel safer on the road, I'd suggest that you go purchase
>>> an
>>> SUV. Kind of foolish to drive around in a vehicle that you don't feel is
>>> one
>>> of the safest methods of transport, isn't it? Why not change your
>>> situation
>>> rather than whine about everyone else's?
>>
>> I think you've precisely captured the situation. People driving SUVs
>> *feel* safer. In fact, they're not any safer; the rollover rate is so
>> high that they may be in more danger.
>>
>> Also, of course, the "I'm safer, so fuck the rest of you assholes"
>> attitude is endemic among SUV drivers, which is why they're pretty
>> uniformly hated by everybody else on the road.
>
> So if the safety issue is a moot point, what's all the power whining about
> from drivers of cars? If the fatality rate is virtually the same then the
> drivers of cars should be focused primarily on avoiding ANY crash rather
> than their obsession with crashing into an SUV.
I didn't say it was a moot point. The SUV achieves the amazing goal
of making its passengers less safe *and* everybody else less safe.
Isn't that a clever trick?
> Also, the "I'm safer, so fuck the rest of you assholes" wasn't generated by
> SUV owners. It actually originated from the owners of cars who assumed that
> in collisions with SUVs, they suffer a higher percentage of injury and/or
> fatality. If the statistics others have posted here are correct, there is no
> discernable difference between SUV and automobile injury/fatality rates.
Those two statements are not contradictory; and in fact they're both
true.
When a car and an SUV crash, the car occupants are injured more often
than when two cars crash.
However, when a car and an SUV crash, the SUV occupants are NOT
injured LESS often than when a car and a car crash.
> On a personal note, I own two SUVs, a mid sized pickup, and a car, and I
> definitely feel safer in an SUV but I've never had a collision so I can't
> say that it's a false feeling of security or not. The trick is to never have
> to find out. Defensive driving is the key. There are no accidents. Two
> vehicles coming together in the same space is ALWAYS caused by human error
> which means that it is ALWAYS preventable.
Defensive driving is certainly the key. But your extreme claim is
nonsense. Even going only to factory-authorized mechanics doesn't
guarantee that I *never* *ever* have my brakes go out unexpectedly,
for example. Or that a tire *never* *ever* blows out. There *really
are* collisions the driver bears zero fault for (beyond being on the
road!).
David Dyer-Bennet
That's showing they're more dangerous to the VW occupants. It doesn't
show they're safer for the SUV occupants, though; often, after killing
the VW occupants, it proceeds to roll over and crush its own occupants
too. Or it rolls over while trying to avoid the imminent collision
and kills everybody.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> posted:
One doesn't even have to be driving or be on the road to
be killed by defective or otherwise dangerous vehicles.
Vehicles have crashed into shops and homes, or killed people
on the sidewalk.
RD Sandman
> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>
>> Since I can afford an SUV and transporting my family in one makes
>> them safer,
>
> SUVs aren't safer.
That is mostly true. It all depends on the form of the accident.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
You Know Who
wrote:
>In article <m2hdjoq...@gw.dd-b.net>,
Oh yeah, that's a big problem. The papers are full of stories about
your typical vedic astrologer, driving while drinking and chewing on
pork ribs, only to crash into a cow-urine stand on a busy street
corner.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7052249/
Fbob
So the larger of the two vehicles inflicts more damage on the smaller of the
two? Probably true.
> However, when a car and an SUV crash, the SUV occupants are NOT
> injured LESS often than when a car and a car crash.
And this statement implies that the occupants of the larger vehicle will
sustain injuries at the same rate as when two cars collide? Even if
statistics were to indicate that this were true, I would still remain a firm
believer in the fact that the more metal, plastic, and composites that one
is surrounded by makes the vehicle safer as there is more material to
dissipate the energy inherent in a collision. There are a lot of factors
that enter into whether or not the occupants of a vehicle will be injured or
not in a collision. There are actually three collisions that occur when one
vehicle strikes another one or strikes an object. The first is the contact
and rapid deceleration of the vehicle itself. The second is the rapid
deceleration of the bodies within the vehicle and the third is the rapid
deceleration of the internal organs of the occupant. Physics would dictate
that the larger, more massive vehicle would tend to stay in motion longer
than a smaller, lighter vehicle thereby having more time to dissipate
kinetic energy.
>> On a personal note, I own two SUVs, a mid sized pickup, and a car, and I
>> definitely feel safer in an SUV but I've never had a collision so I can't
>> say that it's a false feeling of security or not. The trick is to never
>> have
>> to find out. Defensive driving is the key. There are no accidents. Two
>> vehicles coming together in the same space is ALWAYS caused by human
>> error
>> which means that it is ALWAYS preventable.
>
> Defensive driving is certainly the key. But your extreme claim is
> nonsense. Even going only to factory-authorized mechanics doesn't
> guarantee that I *never* *ever* have my brakes go out unexpectedly,
> for example. Or that a tire *never* *ever* blows out. There *really
> are* collisions the driver bears zero fault for (beyond being on the
> road!).
> --
There has to be a reason that brakes would 'go out' unexpectedly. Did the
mechanic fail to make the proper repair to them? Was there a seal on the
disk puck that was cracked requiring replacement but was over looked? Human
error. Was the vehicle driven too long before the brakes were inspected for
wear? Human error. Was there a design flaw that resulted in premature
component failure? Human error. When the vehicle was assembled at the
factory, was there an aluminum sheet metal screw driven through the floor
board that, with out actually puncturing the steel brake line, made contact
with it and caused dissimilar metal corrosion that eventually resulted in a
catastrophic brake line failure? ( That happened on a motor home I owned)
Design flaw and/or careless manufacturing procedures. Again, human error.
Other than a lightning bolt out of a clear blue sky, there are no accidents.
Every unexpected or unanticipated and undesirable action can have it's roots
traced back to some level of human error thereby negating the possibility of
the situation being classed as an 'accident'. The middle rung of the ladder
you are climbing suddenly parts in the middle causing you to fall. Is that
an accident? No. It was either a design flaw, poor construction, or a
failure to properly inspect the ladder before use. All human error. Vehicle
collisions are the epitome of the human error factor. Any collision for any
reason can be traced back to a point at which a human's action can be blamed
to one degree or another whether it was an error on the drafting table
before the vehicle was built right on through to the time the driver had his
head up his butt changing the radio station causing him to blow through the
red stop light.
My apologies for drifting off topic somewhat but I wanted to clarify the
reason there is no such thing as an 'accident'.
Keith F. Lynch
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>> There are no accidents. Two vehicles coming together in the same
>> space is ALWAYS caused by human error which means that it is ALWAYS
>> preventable.
> Defensive driving is certainly the key. But your extreme claim is
> nonsense. Even going only to factory-authorized mechanics doesn't
> guarantee that I *never* *ever* have my brakes go out unexpectedly,
> for example. Or that a tire *never* *ever* blows out. There
> *really are* collisions the driver bears zero fault for (beyond
> being on the road!).
Fbob didn't say "driver error," he said "human error". This is
trivially true, but not in an interesting sense. Yes, if drivers,
auto mechanics, and everyone else were perfecly wise and perfectly
knowledgable, there would be no crashes. Car struck by a meteor?
If you had known the path of the meteor, you would have made sure
your car was somewhere else at the time, i.e. human error.
"Accident" doesn't mean "not preventable," however. It means "not
deliberate". So all car crashes, preventable or otherwise, are
accidents unless they were deliberate.
BUSH=TERRORIST
<dontspam...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <Xns96106781DDA0D...@151.164.30.44>, DeepSea
><deep_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> fiend999 <dontspam...@newsguy.com> wrote in news:050320050950293750%
>> dontspam...@newsguy.com:
>>
>> > In article <1110006647.a213bafb34ea6713e2edf205585e8ca9@teranews>,
>> > Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <1109964863.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> "msl...@aol.com Lucile Wilson" <msl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Forget it. One out of every two cars on our street in the neughborhood
>> >> > are SUV's. People love them and you need to educate yourself about
>> >> > their driving records. People kill...Cars DONT.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
>> >> makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
>> >> that can't fit in a two-door?
>> >
>> > For starters, anyone with more than two kids under whatever age that
>> > booster seats are no longer required will need at least a mini-van if
>> > not an SUV of some kind...... extended family members or friends going
>> > to dinner (or would you rather have us take 2 or more vehicles?)...
>> > pets... camping gear.... building and landscaping materials for my home
>> > (or shoudl I make several trips or maybe pay for delivery in an even
>> > bigger gas guzzling truck?)...large pieces of furniture I often acquire
>> > at estate sales and then re-sell... several bicycles - they don't make
>> > very many 4 bike racks that don't require a trailer hitch mount, and
>> > that many won't fit on a roof rack on a 2 door....
>> >
>> > But I will say this - I do suspect that most drivers of ridiculously
>> > huge SUVs like an Expedition or Suburban have much more vehicle than
>> > they need. I don't imagine that anyone who is not in combat really
>> > needs an H2 either.
>> >
>> > --
>>
>> I agree with you in principle and most detailsof your post. I disagree
>> with your assessment of the H2. The H2 is basically a soccer mom SUV with
>> some HMMWV engineering features and styling, with a price tag to boot. Its
>> actually smaller than the Suburban and Expedition in terms of volume and
>> wheelbase, and has the same max gross vehicle weight as the Suburban. It
>> is very capable off-road, but it is very much more expensive than other
>> vehicles that are just as (if not more) capable offroad. Having been a
>> driver and a passenger in HMMWVs, H1s and H2s, my opinion is that an H2 is
>> little more than a marketing effort to bring the styling and image of the
>> H1 into a lower price range - the H2 retail price is in the neighborhood of
>> 60% less than an H1. I believe the H2 is more about style and image than
>> anything else because most of the H2's capabilities/features etc can be had
>> for a lot less $. A combat vehicle it aint!.
>
>I knew, this being usenet, that someone would take me to task for
>implying that the H2 was combat ready :) Mostly I said "H2" because I
>was hesitant to use the phrase "really needs a Hummer".
>
>I have noticed a buttload of H2s roaming the'burbs lately. I assumed
>that meant that they are being offered at a more reasonable price
>point. They do seem like a waste. I usually tend to go for function
>over style.
>
>
>--
>Why vote republican?
>
>Can someone answer this without saying something like "because they
>aren't democrats", "they aren't gonna (can't) get blowjobs in the
>whitehouse" or "I don't care for homersekshuls and their ay-jen-duh"?
>
>
Because American's aren't happy unless they're being lied
to, screwed, enjoy being illegally taxed for the last 85
years, their property seized without a court order, and
charged outrageous interest penalty if they didn't or
couldn't pay the illegally forced taxes
http://www.givemeliberty.org/docs/TaxResearchCD/Attach1.htm
http://www.givemeliberty.org/docs/TaxResearchCD/Attach2-Overview.htm
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/SchulzLetterTaxReform-2-12-05.htm
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-02-18.htm
The American people really enjoy being used and sacrificed
so those in government, big Corp., and oil companies can
rake in the billions in profits
And certainly don't mind $3.7 trillion has been stolen from
the HUD and DOD government accounts and rising, over the past
3 1/2 years, the American people prefer the thieves have it
rather than each American adult receive approx $4 million
instead, they don't mind doing without so those in
government can enjoy the life of luxury.
And don't mind the Senate has done two investigations already
regarding the DOD employees using government credit cards to
make personal purchases, such as a girlfriends breast implants,
porno memberships on the internet, high end laptops, and it's
really great not one dime has every had to be paid back, they
all still have their jobs, and still using their government
issued credit cards for more personal purchases. And the
American people enjoy paying for them to have those credit
cards to use on anything they desire or need.
And certainly doesn't bother them the jobs are being sent over
seas, causing them to loose their homes, wipe out what little
savings they had because there are so few if any jobs to be
found.
The American people prefer to be suckers and let the
government do their thinking for them, believing the
government lies and propaganda lies about WMD, etc.,
even enjoy playing the game guessing what new lies
they'll come up with each time they get caught.
It makes them feel good their nation is referred to as
"Satan",
Enjoys Congress totally ignoring the evidence of tampered
elections and declaring Bush as President anyway.
And certainly proud of the fact their selected President
has achieved the title of being one of the three most evil
men in the history of mankind, not an easy task to achieve
you know.
And the people feel they have to abide by the laws, but
perfectly acceptable the government doesn't need to, and
don't have a problem with the government investigating
themselves, after all they're always "not guilty" and
that's the way it should be, regardless of what they do.
The people feel it's quite alright they work and pay into
their social security and let the government tell them if,
when and how much they can have each month, and don't mind
at all it's reduced if they have other retirements, and they
really like the idea if they don't live to collect their
social security or only collect partial it should go to the
government rather than their estate.
The people think it's a great system those in government receive
100% paid medical, dental, life insurance, retirement without any
deductibles or reductions, while they go without medical, dental
care and receiving $1100 per couple a month in social security,
while those in government receive a minimum of $15,000 per month
for retirement, with no deductions for any of their additional
retirements they may receive.
And the people will really be celebrating shortly, thanks to
Bush's new tax reform panel, with their already decided new
tax for the American people, and thought it would be a nice
touch to use the "we care about the American people" approach,
creating the tax reform panel charade to make it look good with
recommending the new "Consumer tax" that's already been decided.
Of course the people think it's wonderful Bush has spent over
$13 trillion, and borrowing faster than he can print it, and we
don't see any need for him to account for one dime of where it
all went, if he runs low just borrow more, after all it's only
money, and we certainly don't need any to survive.
After all, American's aren't happy unless they're government is
screwing them, lying to them, stealing from them, sacrificing
their lives, etc.
And why shouldn't the police and military be the only ones who
should have the Five-SeveN pistol, after all don't most American's
walk around wearing bullet proof vests ? The American people don't
need to defend themselves against the military, police or Bush's
Wackenhut Security force, run and operated by ex-CIA/FBI agents
when a police state is declared. The American people will just
happily except it just like they do everything else.
Two interesting quotes made by Henry Kissinger :
The first stated in 1992 :
A quote by HENRY KISSINGER in an address to the super
secret Bilderberg Organization meeting at Evian, France,
May 21, 1992. He said the following as transcribed from
a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates:
"Today American's would be outraged if U.N. troops entered
Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful.
This is especially true if they were told there was an outside
threat from beyond, WHETHER REAL OR PROMULGATED, that threatened
our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will
plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one
thing every man fears is the unknown. When PRESENTED with this
SCENARIO, individual rights will be WILLINGLY relinquished for
the guarantee of their well being granted to them by THEIR WORLD
GOVERNMENT."
Notice the capitalized words, especially, their world
government, as in a one government.
And the second :
“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns
in foreign policy.” - Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Kiss the Boys
Goodbye.
David Dyer-Bennet
> [newsgroups trimmed to just rasff]
>
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>>> There are no accidents. Two vehicles coming together in the same
>>> space is ALWAYS caused by human error which means that it is ALWAYS
>>> preventable.
>
>> Defensive driving is certainly the key. But your extreme claim is
>> nonsense. Even going only to factory-authorized mechanics doesn't
>> guarantee that I *never* *ever* have my brakes go out unexpectedly,
>> for example. Or that a tire *never* *ever* blows out. There
>> *really are* collisions the driver bears zero fault for (beyond
>> being on the road!).
>
> Fbob didn't say "driver error," he said "human error". This is
> trivially true, but not in an interesting sense. Yes, if drivers,
> auto mechanics, and everyone else were perfecly wise and perfectly
> knowledgable, there would be no crashes. Car struck by a meteor?
> If you had known the path of the meteor, you would have made sure
> your car was somewhere else at the time, i.e. human error.
The meteor, in fact, might not have been seen by any human. It might
sever a brake line, and I'd later crash if I'm unlucky, due to no
human error whatsoever.
In most manufacturing plants, parts aren't inspected 100%. Possibly
it's a human error to have made that decision, but other than that,
some parts failures involve a problem never seen by any human.
So no, I don't think even his extreme arguments work.
> "Accident" doesn't mean "not preventable," however. It means "not
> deliberate". So all car crashes, preventable or otherwise, are
> accidents unless they were deliberate.
Yes.
(This is essentially equivalent to the argument for use of "negligent
discharge" for *every* case of "accidental discharge").
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>As a matter of fact, in my state, law enforcement no longer uses the term
>'automobile accident' since there are no 'accidents'. A vehicle colliding
>with another vehicle or an object is the result of driver error or
>carelessness. There are no accidents.
Right, please tell me exactly what driver error or carelessness
causes the master cylinder to completely fail on a nearly new vehicle,
leaving it with no braking power.
Morton Davis
"BUSH=TERRORIST" <bush-...@than-SATAN.com> wrote in message
news:1110167706.f2f7977ece81850cd8fdafa184d197e2@teranews...
Because American's aren't happy unless they're being lied
> to, screwed,
We got rid of that guy in 2000 and didn't take his clone in 2004.
-*MORT*-
EnemyOfTheLeft
Chinese
and Indians are sucking up greater and greater quantities of the
World's oil)
will do in those vehicles, just like increases doomed big cars in the
late
1970s. You want to achieve alot more saved lives than by banning
assault
pistols? Ban negros instead.
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>"Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> writes:
>
>> If you want to feel safer on the road, I'd suggest that you go purchase an
>> SUV. Kind of foolish to drive around in a vehicle that you don't feel is one
>> of the safest methods of transport, isn't it? Why not change your situation
>> rather than whine about everyone else's?
>
>I think you've precisely captured the situation. People driving SUVs
>*feel* safer. In fact, they're not any safer; the rollover rate is so
>high that they may be in more danger.
>
>Also, of course, the "I'm safer, so fuck the rest of you assholes"
>attitude is endemic among SUV drivers, which is why they're pretty
>uniformly hated by everybody else on the road.
This was nicely discussed in a _New Yorker_ article in the last year or so,
which points out that the arguments about carrying capacity and safety really
do actually apply to _minivans_, not to SUVs. (Minivans also fall under
CAFE fuel requirements, so may get better mileage than SUVs.)
--Alan
Alan Braggins
>Fbob <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>> According to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers SUVs are safer.
>> Occupant fatality rate per 100,000 crashes of registered vehicles in 2001
>> Cars 12.17
>> SUVs 6.34
>> Pickups 9.25
>
>I'm not taking any position on whether SUVs are safer than cars, but I
>will point out that it's logically possible for SUVs to be less safe
>per passenger-mile even if they're safer per *crash*.
It's also possible for them to be more dangerous per crash and have
a lower occupant fatality rate, if SUVs are more likely to be single
occupant vehicles.
And it's also possible for a vehicle to be both safer for its occupants
and be a greater danger to other road users, whether per crash, per mile,
per passenger-mile, or per journey hour.
fiend999
Asmodeus <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
> fiend999 <dontspam...@newsguy.com> wrote in news:050320050950293750%
> dontspam...@newsguy.com:
>
> > But I will say this - I do suspect that most drivers of ridiculously
> > huge SUVs like an Expedition or Suburban have much more vehicle than
> > they need.
>
> What I may or may not need is none of your, or the government's,
> goddamned business, now, is it.
Hey blowhard - you snipped the rest of my post which justified larger
vehicles, then you tried to pick a fight with one little piece of it
where I didn't say it was any of my business, or the governments. I
happen to have a crew-cab truck myself. I was merely pointing out that
YOU do not need a huge vehicle to cart your sorry ass to your "Society
for the Ridiculously Unendowed and Almost Illiterate" meetings.
Attempting to drive more than you need when you are either mentally,
physically, or emotionally unable to handle it is a danger to others.
Look around - you will see people driving huge vehicles who look
panic-striken if they have to make a tight turn, drive a narrow road,
or navigate a grocery store parking lot. Judging by your defensive
knee-jerk reaction, I suspect you are one of those people.
Now run along and troll elsewhere.
--
You Know Who
<bush-...@than-SATAN.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:43:05 GMT, "Morton Davis" <anti...@home.com>
>wrote:
>Thanks for confirming my point, I had no doubt at least one of you
>would.
>
>Clinton saved $4 trillion in reserve, w
ROFL
Only an idiot leftist would thing there was 4 trillion "in reserve."
There was no "reserve," you fool.
Now, give us a cite about Bush's "stolen oil." Where is it? Who has
it? How much is stolen?
Cite! Cite! Cite!
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> I'm not taking any position on whether SUVs are safer than cars,
>> but I will point out that it's logically possible for SUVs to be
>> less safe per passenger-mile even if they're safer per *crash*.
> It's also possible for them to be more dangerous per crash and have
> a lower occupant fatality rate, if SUVs are more likely to be single
> occupant vehicles.
> And it's also possible for a vehicle to be both safer for its
> occupants and be a greater danger to other road users, whether
> per crash, per mile, per passenger-mile, or per journey hour.
Indeed. The only times I've ever been hit by a car while on foot were
when the car was turning right while the driver was looking left.
Each time, I went up on the hood, and wasn't seriously hurt.
But if this were to happen with an *SUV*, I would go *under*, not
over. And probably wouldn't be seen at all, so I'd be run over by
the full weight of the vehicle. And possibly by one or two vehicles
behind it.
If the authorities really cared about safety, anyone who turned
without looking where they were going would have their license yanked
for life, and would get a fair amount of jail time, too. As long as
drivers with a depraved indifference to human life are running around
loose, I am going to be very concerned with the prevalence of SUVs.
Morton Davis
"BUSH=TERRORIST" <bush-...@than-SATAN.com> wrote in message
> would.
>
> Clinton saved $4 trillion in reserve,
No, he did not, There was not one dollar in the so-cal;led "Clinton Surplus"
it was smoke and mirrors, based on the status quo remaining in effect well
into the future. 9-11 destroyed the status quo. Many of the cutbacks in
services fiucktards like you cry about were mandated by the "Clinton
Surplus" doondoggle.
-*MORT*-
Joel Rosenberg
Not only possible, but likely -- many tanks would almost certainly fall
into that category, given the often limited view of the driver.
Hello
"Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
> "Hello" <nob...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:1110006647.a213bafb34ea6713e2edf205585e8ca9@teranews...
> > In article <1109964863.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > "msl...@aol.com Lucile Wilson" <msl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Forget it. One out of every two cars on our street in the neughborhood
> >> are SUV's. People love them and you need to educate yourself about
> >> their driving records. People kill...Cars DONT.
> >>
> >
> > Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
> > makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
> > that can't fit in a two-door?
>
> Why don't you try towing a 20 foot livestock trailer with your Pinto?
Why are you driving a 20 foot livestock trailer through rush-hour
traffic to your parking garage?
Why are you driving around the city with a livestock trailer, asshole?
You slow traffic, and nobody can see around you. If you want to drive
that farmer shit, live in the sticks.
> If you want to feel safer on the road, I'd suggest that you go purchase an
> SUV. Kind of foolish to drive around in a vehicle that you don't feel is one
> of the safest methods of transport, isn't it? Why not change your situation
> rather than whine about everyone else's?
Because SUV drivers are most often of such low skill that they buy the
SUV to compensate for lack of ability. These are the very people that
should be driving the smallest cars.
I see you're into farming. You have no business mixing it up, every
morning, in rush-hour traffic in the big city. Leave the SUV in the
sticks, and take the Corolla to work.
Hello
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> writes:
>
> > If you want to feel safer on the road, I'd suggest that you go purchase an
> > SUV. Kind of foolish to drive around in a vehicle that you don't feel is
> > one
> > of the safest methods of transport, isn't it? Why not change your situation
> > rather than whine about everyone else's?
Thank God for small blessings?
>
> I think you've precisely captured the situation. People driving SUVs
> *feel* safer. In fact, they're not any safer; the rollover rate is so
> high that they may be in more danger.
>
> Also, of course, the "I'm safer, so fuck the rest of you assholes"
> attitude is endemic among SUV drivers, which is why they're pretty
> uniformly hated by everybody else on the road.
Indeed. Not only do they feel safer, so they drive incompetently, they
use so much vision space needed by every other car on the road.
Only an asshole buys one of these.
Hello
"Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
> So if the safety issue is a moot point, what's all the power whining about
> from drivers of cars?
The least-competent drivers buy SUVs, so we have very heavy and lethal
vehicles being piloted by the cowardly or the incompetent. This is
dangerous for everyone else. Equally important is that SUVs use too much
vision space in the city, causing everyone to be less safe.
Cowards buy SUVs.
Hello
"Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
> > Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
> > makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
> > that can't fit in a two-door?
>
> Since I can afford an SUV
I see. If that's all you can afford, I understand. Perhaps think of the
new Dodge wagon with a hemi. It will accomplish the same purpose without
making you look like a hillbilly.
If you can some day afford more, and you want to buy something classy
and safe, buy a Mercedes or Volvo wagon, not some hillbilly farmer
vehicle that's just a pickup with a different body.
> Why would I choose to put myself and
> my family in a less safe vehicle if I have a choice?
You'll be glad you got out of the accident-prone and rollover-prone SUV
and got into a Mercedes wagon. You're family will also thank you.
> As a matter of fact, in my state, law enforcement no longer uses the term
> 'automobile accident' since there are no 'accidents'.
I hardly look to police for insight into roadway conduct.
> A vehicle colliding
> with another vehicle or an object is the result of driver error or
> carelessness. There are no accidents.
The insurance lobby is powerful in your state, then?
Hello
Johnny Bravo <baawa_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 10:09:53 -0600, "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net>
> wrote:
>
> >As a matter of fact, in my state, law enforcement no longer uses the term
> >'automobile accident' since there are no 'accidents'. A vehicle colliding
> >with another vehicle or an object is the result of driver error or
> >carelessness. There are no accidents.
>
> Right, please tell me exactly what driver error or carelessness
> causes the master cylinder to completely fail on a nearly new vehicle,
> leaving it with no braking power.
The driver error of living in a state where the insurance company wants
to soak you.
Hello
Asmodeus <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
> fiend999 <dontspam...@newsguy.com> wrote in news:050320050950293750%
> dontspam...@newsguy.com:
>
> > But I will say this - I do suspect that most drivers of ridiculously
> > huge SUVs like an Expedition or Suburban have much more vehicle than
> > they need.
>
> What I may or may not need is none of your, or the government's,
> goddamned business, now, is it.
It is when you infringe on my use of the road.
SUVs take more than they deserve.
Hello
RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:10:37 -0500, Hello wrote:
>
> > In article <1109964863.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > "msl...@aol.com Lucile Wilson" <msl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Forget it. One out of every two cars on our street in the neughborhood
> >> are SUV's. People love them and you need to educate yourself about
> >> their driving records. People kill...Cars DONT.
> >>
> >
> > Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
> > makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
> > that can't fit in a two-door?
>
> 2X4s and a motorcycle.
So you stuff a motorcycle into your SUV? Also, you carry that stuff
everywhere you go?
Hello
Joe Ellis <fil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <1110006647.a213bafb34ea6713e2edf205585e8ca9@teranews>,
> Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1109964863.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > "msl...@aol.com Lucile Wilson" <msl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Forget it. One out of every two cars on our street in the neughborhood
> >> are SUV's. People love them and you need to educate yourself about
> >> their driving records. People kill...Cars DONT.
> >>
> >
> >Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
> >makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
> >that can't fit in a two-door?
>
> Not that you deserve a reply, nameless twit...
Then don't give me one, you shameless coward.
> 1 2x6 foot, 2 3.5x4 foot, 1 2.5x4 foot, and 1 2x3.5 foot model railroad
> modules... plus associated gear, with more on the way.
You should not be carrying that with you everywhere you go.
> A 7 foot fishing rod case, two 5 foot cases, three tackle boxes, a 17
> foot canoe, paddles, life jackets, and tent camping gear for 4.
Again, who carries that shit to work, every day, through rush-hour
traffic?
>
> A keyboard, stand, mics, amp, alto sax, tenor sax and baritone sax.
See above.
>
> Each group of things plus as many as 4 people.
>
> Just because you don't have a life away from the keyboard doesn't mean
> other people don't.
Have whatever life you want. Just leave the farmermobile for special use
trips, and drive the Miata to work.
Hello
RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 16:10:33 GMT, DeepSea wrote:
>
> > I agree with you in principle and most detailsof your post. I disagree
> > with your assessment of the H2. The H2 is basically a soccer mom SUV with
> > some HMMWV engineering features and styling, with a price tag to boot. Its
> > actually smaller than the Suburban and Expedition in terms of volume and
> > wheelbase, and has the same max gross vehicle weight as the Suburban. It
> > is very capable off-road, but it is very much more expensive than other
> > vehicles that are just as (if not more) capable offroad. Having been a
> > driver and a passenger in HMMWVs, H1s and H2s, my opinion is that an H2 is
> > little more than a marketing effort to bring the styling and image of the
> > H1 into a lower price range - the H2 retail price is in the neighborhood of
> > 60% less than an H1. I believe the H2 is more about style and image than
> > anything else because most of the H2's capabilities/features etc can be had
> > for a lot less $. A combat vehicle it aint!.
>
> That makes it an "assault vehicle" as it is simply a cosmetic look-alike of
> a real military vehicle. For those who really wish to drive a real Hummer,
> I am sure that there are some openings in Iraq. ;)
Lots of them, in fact. The Army is missing its recruitment numbers.
You Know Who
You don't get to make that determination, shit for brains.
Joe Ellis
Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <filker-F16BF6....@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
> Joe Ellis <fil...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1110006647.a213bafb34ea6713e2edf205585e8ca9@teranews>,
>> Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1109964863.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "msl...@aol.com Lucile Wilson" <msl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Forget it. One out of every two cars on our street in the neughborhood
>> >> are SUV's. People love them and you need to educate yourself about
>> >> their driving records. People kill...Cars DONT.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
>> >makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
>> >that can't fit in a two-door?
>>
>> Not that you deserve a reply, nameless twit...
>
>Then don't give me one, you shameless coward.
You're awfully brave, for someone hiding behind a nom-de-twit...
>
>> 1 2x6 foot, 2 3.5x4 foot, 1 2.5x4 foot, and 1 2x3.5 foot model railroad
>> modules... plus associated gear, with more on the way.
>
>You should not be carrying that with you everywhere you go.
Says who? If you think I ought to buy a second vehicle just to satisfy
your need to tell everyone what they ought to drive, feel free to send
me a check for $30,000. Until then, mind your own damn business.
(I'd probably buy a Jeep Grand Cherokee...)
>> A 7 foot fishing rod case, two 5 foot cases, three tackle boxes, a 17
>> foot canoe, paddles, life jackets, and tent camping gear for 4.
>
>Again, who carries that shit to work, every day, through rush-hour
>traffic?
I carry it often enough to make having a larger vehicle worthwhile. You
really need to get out from behind the wheel of your little pregnant
rollerskate and get in touch with the real world... of course, you won't
be able to take any luggage that won't fit in a tissue box, because your
vehicle won't carry it...
>>
>> A keyboard, stand, mics, amp, alto sax, tenor sax and baritone sax.
>
>See above.
Shows what you know... This IS for "going to work"...
You seem to think a person should own multiple special purpose vehicles
designed to haul exactly what their need of the moment requires, and not
an ounce more. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You buy a vehicle for
your greatest anticipated need, unless you have more money than sense.
>>
>> Each group of things plus as many as 4 people.
>>
>> Just because you don't have a life away from the keyboard doesn't mean
>> other people don't.
>
>Have whatever life you want. Just leave the farmermobile for special use
>trips, and drive the Miata to work.
"Farmermobile"?!? LOL! My goodness, you ARE ignorant of how things are
in "flyover country", aren't you?
I wouldn't drive a Miata if you paid me. I've been _hit_ 3 times in the
past five years while driving a full-size 3/4 ton passenger van. Two of
those three were serious. None of them were my fault, as found by the
police.
Every one of them, I walked away from (shaken, but walked away...) and
the vehicle was repaired.
First, a toy pickup made an opposing left turn in front of me--- against
the light, driver was unlicensed (and an illegal alien...) in a
"borrowed" vehicle. I braked and evaded as much as traffic would allow,
then hit the truck. They had to pry my door open, but I was unhurt. In
your little Miata, I probably would have had at least a broken leg.
Second, two morons on I-4 in Orlando were playing racing games at rush
hour and I got caught in the middle. Little yellow Mustang cut me off,
and a big 4x4 pickup tried to go around me (and the Mustang) on the
median/centerwall divider. He didn't make it, and clipped my RR corner.
I was doing about 50, he was at about 70. He went into the wall,
breaking his axle. I barely kept the vehicle under control, and pulled
off further up. Fortunately, so did witnesses.
The third one was just minor - someone following too close didn't stop
when I did. They punched a nice square hole in their plastic bumper with
my receiver hitch .
Just three of the reasons we left Orlando...
There's no way in hell I'd drive a skateboard.
Get real, get a life, and get lost.
--
Joe Ellis
Joe Ellis
Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
Seems to me YOU'RE the one wanting to do the "infringing"... <<snicker>>
--
Joe Ellis
Joe Ellis
Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
>So you stuff a motorcycle into your SUV? Also, you carry that stuff
>everywhere you go?
Bend over... I just found another place to stuff that motorcycle.... ];)
--
Joe Ellis
Hello
Joe Ellis
Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <4air21trqnjuge4j1...@4ax.com>,
> You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:03:11 -0500, Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <Xns96114EBA8E03Cas...@63.240.76.16>,
>> > Asmodeus <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> fiend999 <dontspam...@newsguy.com> wrote in news:050320050950293750%
>> >> dontspam...@newsguy.com:
>> >>
>> >> > But I will say this - I do suspect that most drivers of ridiculously
>> >> > huge SUVs like an Expedition or Suburban have much more vehicle than
>> >> > they need.
>> >>
>> >> What I may or may not need is none of your, or the government's,
>> >> goddamned business, now, is it.
>> >
>> >It is when you infringe on my use of the road.
>> >SUVs take more than they deserve.
>>
>> You don't get to make that determination, shit for brains.
>
>My roads, coward.
Wrong again. OUR roads, not yours.
--
Joe Ellis
You Know Who
Wrong again, shit for brains. My giant smoking SUV doesn't infringe on
your right to use the road. Just stay the fuck out of my way, insect.
RD Sandman
> In article <d0fb31$f1l$1...@news.netins.net>,
> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>
>> "Hello" <nob...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:1110006647.a213bafb34ea6713e2edf205585e8ca9@teranews...
>>> In article <1109964863.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "msl...@aol.com Lucile Wilson" <msl...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Forget it. One out of every two cars on our street in the neughborhood
>>>> are SUV's. People love them and you need to educate yourself about
>>>> their driving records. People kill...Cars DONT.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
>>> makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
>>> that can't fit in a two-door?
>>
>> Why don't you try towing a 20 foot livestock trailer with your Pinto?
>
> Why are you driving a 20 foot livestock trailer through rush-hour
> traffic to your parking garage?
It was that time of day........
> Why are you driving around the city with a livestock trailer, asshole?
Trying to deliver the contents to you city folks.....
> You slow traffic, and nobody can see around you. If you want to drive
> that farmer shit, live in the sticks.
Part of the price you pay to have that shit delivered.
>> If you want to feel safer on the road, I'd suggest that you go purchase an
>> SUV. Kind of foolish to drive around in a vehicle that you don't feel is one
>> of the safest methods of transport, isn't it? Why not change your situation
>> rather than whine about everyone else's?
>
> Because SUV drivers are most often of such low skill that they buy the
> SUV to compensate for lack of ability.
That's true of some of them......
> These are the very people that
> should be driving the smallest cars.
Some of them are already there........
> I see you're into farming. You have no business mixing it up, every
> morning, in rush-hour traffic in the big city. Leave the SUV in the
> sticks, and take the Corolla to work.
Like I said, he was simply trying to deliver the shit that you city folk
eat.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
RD Sandman
> In article <d0fr47$r5v$1...@news.netins.net>,
> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>
>> So if the safety issue is a moot point, what's all the power whining about
>> from drivers of cars?
>
> The least-competent drivers buy SUVs, so we have very heavy and lethal
> vehicles being piloted by the cowardly or the incompetent.
Pure opinion backed up by zero facts....
RD Sandman
Wrong....
RD Sandman
> In article <d0fa09$fi1$1...@news.netins.net>,
> "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
>
>>> Banning SUVs would make the world a better place. An SUV on the road
>>> makes every other driver less safe. What the fuck do you carry with you
>>> that can't fit in a two-door?
>>
>> Since I can afford an SUV
>
> I see. If that's all you can afford, I understand. Perhaps think of the
> new Dodge wagon with a hemi. It will accomplish the same purpose without
> making you look like a hillbilly.
Excuse, I am a hillbilly. Are you a city nerd?
> If you can some day afford more, and you want to buy something classy
> and safe, buy a Mercedes or Volvo wagon, not some hillbilly farmer
> vehicle that's just a pickup with a different body.
But it won't pull my wagon so I can deliver to you the shit you eat.
>> Why would I choose to put myself and
>> my family in a less safe vehicle if I have a choice?
>
> You'll be glad you got out of the accident-prone and rollover-prone SUV
> and got into a Mercedes wagon. You're family will also thank you.
Sorry, I sold my Mercedes. Neither of them could pull my wagon.
>> As a matter of fact, in my state, law enforcement no longer uses the term
>> 'automobile accident' since there are no 'accidents'.
>
> I hardly look to police for insight into roadway conduct.
Just like most folks don't look to you, either. ;)
RD Sandman
Nope, he pays more road taxes than you do. You on his road. ;)
RD Sandman
Sure gets it out the dirt without running it on the public roads.
> Also, you carry that stuff everywhere you go?
No, sometimes, I carry saddles, riding gear, ropes, ladders, other people,
targets, buckets of paint, bags of cement, a set of tires, etc... Depends
on what I am doing that day.
Hello
RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> No, sometimes, I carry saddles, riding gear, ropes, ladders, other people,
> targets, buckets of paint, bags of cement, a set of tires, etc... Depends
> on what I am doing that day.
As long as you're off city roads and away from rush hour traffic, you
can keep the SUV in the woods where it belongs.
Hello
RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:03:11 -0500, Hello wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns96114EBA8E03Cas...@63.240.76.16>,
> > Asmodeus <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> fiend999 <dontspam...@newsguy.com> wrote in news:050320050950293750%
> >> dontspam...@newsguy.com:
> >>
> >>> But I will say this - I do suspect that most drivers of ridiculously
> >>> huge SUVs like an Expedition or Suburban have much more vehicle than
> >>> they need.
> >>
> >> What I may or may not need is none of your, or the government's,
> >> goddamned business, now, is it.
> >
> > It is when you infringe on my use of the road.
>
> Nope, he pays more road taxes than you do. You on his road. ;)
He pays less road taxes than he should. I pay comparatively more.
Plus, I'm a far better driver. It's my road.
Hello
RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:26:46 -0500, Hello wrote:
>
> > In article <4air21trqnjuge4j1...@4ax.com>,
> > You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:03:11 -0500, Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <Xns96114EBA8E03Cas...@63.240.76.16>,
> >>> Asmodeus <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> fiend999 <dontspam...@newsguy.com> wrote in news:050320050950293750%
> >>>> dontspam...@newsguy.com:
> >>>>
> >>>> > But I will say this - I do suspect that most drivers of ridiculously
> >>>> > huge SUVs like an Expedition or Suburban have much more vehicle than
> >>>> > they need.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I may or may not need is none of your, or the government's,
> >>>> goddamned business, now, is it.
> >>>
> >>>It is when you infringe on my use of the road.
> >>>SUVs take more than they deserve.
> >>
> >> You don't get to make that determination, shit for brains.
> >
> > My roads, coward.
>
> Wrong....
You'll think that until I come up behind you.
Then you'll learn.
Hello
You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
> >My roads, coward.
>
> Wrong again, shit for brains. My giant smoking SUV doesn't infringe on
> your right to use the road.
Yes, it does, pussy. It blocks my vision, and it uses too much road.
Additionally, they don't handle, and the drivers who pilot them are the
least-competent, purchasing the vehicle because of fear, inability, or
cowardice.
> Just stay the fuck out of my way, insect.
My road. See you at the next cloverleaf, where you'll be hitting the
brakes like a chickenshit.
Only cowards drive SUVs.
Hello
RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:52:48 -0500, Hello wrote:
>
> > In article <d0fr47$r5v$1...@news.netins.net>,
> > "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net> wrote:
> >
> >> So if the safety issue is a moot point, what's all the power whining about
> >> from drivers of cars?
> >
> > The least-competent drivers buy SUVs, so we have very heavy and lethal
> > vehicles being piloted by the cowardly or the incompetent.
>
> Pure opinion backed up by zero facts....
Not zero.
You drive one.
Hello
RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I see. If that's all you can afford, I understand. Perhaps think of the
> > new Dodge wagon with a hemi. It will accomplish the same purpose without
> > making you look like a hillbilly.
>
> Excuse, I am a hillbilly.
At least you admit it.
Just stay out of the city with your hickmobile.
Hello
RD Sandman <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I see you're into farming. You have no business mixing it up, every
> > morning, in rush-hour traffic in the big city. Leave the SUV in the
> > sticks, and take the Corolla to work.
>
> Like I said, he was simply trying to deliver the shit that you city folk
> eat.
Nobody goes to the sticks for good food.
Asmodeus
news:cu6v1a7tltyl$.dlg@hopewell.invalid:
> No, sometimes, I carry saddles, riding gear, ropes, ladders, other
> people, targets, buckets of paint, bags of cement, a set of tires,
> etc... Depends on what I am doing that day.
SUVs come in particularly handy when you're moving (he said, after
just buying a house).
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || The Right War
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || The Right Time
/ \ AND POSTINGS || The Right President
You Know Who
>In article <6dvr21p360h8k8rs2...@4ax.com>,
> You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
>
>> >My roads, coward.
>>
>> Wrong again, shit for brains. My giant smoking SUV doesn't infringe on
>> your right to use the road.
>
>Yes, it does, pussy. It blocks my vision, and it uses too much road.
It uses just the right amount of road, and I can see everything just
fine.
>Additionally, they don't handle, and the drivers who pilot them are the
>least-competent, purchasing the vehicle because of fear, inability, or
>cowardice.
Actually, none of that is your fucking business, so just live with it.
>> Just stay the fuck out of my way, insect.
>
>My road.
Wrong again.
>See you at the next cloverleaf, where you'll be hitting the
>brakes like a chickenshit.
You wont be there to see it. I forced you into the median several
miles back.
>Only cowards drive SUVs.
Live with it, loser.
Seth Breidbart
Hello <nob...@nospam.com> wrote:
>You'll think that until I come up behind you.
>
>Then you'll learn.
Caltrops are my friend.
Seth
RD Sandman
That is why we bring it to you. ;)
RD Sandman
Actually, no I don't. ;)
RD Sandman
Why? Me coming into town to spend my egg money is perfectly legal in all
50 states.
RD Sandman
> In article <6dvr21p360h8k8rs2...@4ax.com>,
> You Know Who <vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com > wrote:
>
>>>My roads, coward.
>>
>> Wrong again, shit for brains. My giant smoking SUV doesn't infringe on
>> your right to use the road.
>
> Yes, it does, pussy. It blocks my vision, and it uses too much road.
If you cannot maneuver around them, perhaps you need remedial drivers ed.
> Additionally, they don't handle, and the drivers who pilot them are the
> least-competent, purchasing the vehicle because of fear, inability, or
> cowardice.
>
>> Just stay the fuck out of my way, insect.
>
> My road. See you at the next cloverleaf, where you'll be hitting the
> brakes like a chickenshit.
>
> Only cowards drive SUVs.
Easy to say from there, isn't it. ;)
RD Sandman
It belongs wherever I happen to drive it.
RD Sandman
Oh, no.
> Plus, I'm a far better driver. It's my road.
ROFLMAO!!!!!