Do SUVs support terrorists?

[Matt Hazuda]

THe local radio morning show I listen to was talking about this group called The Detroit Project (http://www.thedetroitproject.com/) that says driving an SUV supports the terrorists. They also have an ad that has caused some controversy, which can be viewed at http://www.thedetroitproject.com/ads/george.ram

Think slowly and you'll get what's going on for real and who it is directed at :D

So what do you think? Does buying an SUV "let the terrorists win"?

[BLACKHEART]

Yes let the panic begin. Terrorist are winning everytime a SUV takes the road. Since the SUV unlike other cars uses a foreign substance known as gas. Unlike other automobiles who's fuel and power are unknown. This gas substance supports terrorist because we use their oil to power are killing machines known as the SUV. When you buy this "gas" know that your blood money helped kill thousands.

[The Landstander]

gas in general helps terrorism.

[Jethro_McB]

All gas sales probably help terrorists, but SUVs are worse because they're becoming more and more common and they use more gas than the standard sedan or coupe.

[JohnCrichton]

Is this making fun of those ads that say pot smoking supports terrorism?

[DJ Raza]

{Is this making fun of those ads that say pot smoking supports terrorism?}

I'm not sure, but far as I'm concerned both commercials are way out of context and proportion. That's like saying everytime you buy products from China, you're supporting Communism.

[Shnay]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton
Is this making fun of those ads that say pot smoking supports terrorism?

Thank you! Nobody has mentioned this. This ad is a direct copy of the "Dan's Cartel" ad (although, I wouldn't say it's making fun of it). That ad, which linked marijuana use to terrorism, met with absolutely no complaints from anyone in the media. Then someone comes along and says the same thing about SUVs, and everyone has a hissy fit.

Yes, we should learn to conserve oil, not only to lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern nations, but for the environment, as well. However, commercials like this (if it isn't just meant to make fun of those ads) is most certainly not the way to get this message across to people. Scare tactics like this are low, and are just plain stupid.

The one thing I did find amusing about all this was the government response to it. They basically said "Americans have the right to drive as big a car as they want!" I just found it funny.

Another funny thing, I was supposed to do this exact same thing for a government project about using public fear to your advantage. Turns out they beat me to it.

[Jedigreedo]

OMG, we're trying to keep water clean, that's supporting terrorists! Everyone stop drinking water, we have to poison it!

[Pilmedium]

I do not think SUVs really support terrorists. While smaller cars use less oil, they still use it. It does not matter how much is used, as their product is still used. Less money going to their nations would cause terrorists to get, or make, cheaper weapons.

[The Landstander]

i agree that it was interesting how the (stupid, waste of taxpayer money, propaganda) pot = terrorism commercial was met with barely any criticism, while the (interesting, mildly true, smart) SUV = Terrorism has become this whole controversy.

as for the government trying to use commercials to win the war on drugs, i believe an old quote from the home movies episode mortgages & marbles sums it up well:

Brendon: (After showing his anti-putting marbles up your nose video to the kindergarden class) Tell me, at what point did you get the urge to put marbles in your nose?
Little Kid: (With two marbles in his nose) When Spikey told me not to.

ill admit that last part was a little offtopic, but i was watching that episode a couple of days ago and made that connection in my mind and ive been looking for an excuse to use it ever since.

[Elven Moon]

Supports terrorists?! Um... no. But I still don't like SUVs :p

[Zach Logan]

Originally posted by DrWeird
i agree that it was interesting how the (stupid, waste of taxpayer money, propaganda) pot = terrorism commercial was met with barely any criticism, while the (interesting, mildly true, smart) SUV = Terrorism has become this whole controversy.

as for the government trying to use commercials to win the war on drugs, i believe an old quote from the home movies episode mortgages & marbles sums it up well:

Brendon: (After showing his anti-putting marbles up your nose video to the kindergarden class) Tell me, at what point did you get the urge to put marbles in your nose?
Little Kid: (With two marbles in his nose) When Spikey told me not to.

ill admit that last part was a little offtopic, but i was watching that episode a couple of days ago and made that connection in my mind and ive been looking for an excuse to use it ever since.

Exactly

[RZetlin]

Yes, we Americans must raise up against terrorism! Stop buying SUVs!

If you own a SUV you must purge the evil by setting this hell machine ablaze!

Since Ford and GM are producing the SUVs these companies are supporting terrorism! Accordance to American law we must freeze all their assets and shut down the auto plants. The auto executives must be send to Guantanamo Bay where the rest of their buddies are.

Do it for the pride of America! Be a true American!

[Joe Wagner]

No. This ad campaign is the most ludacris thing I've heard in a long time and the people behind the campaign are hypocrite's. Sean Hannity interviewed one of the women leading this campaign and he questioned her about her use of private jets - to which she replied "I never go anywhere on a private jet unless it's going where I'm going." One of the other people behind the campaign, I believe it was Larry David, complained about SUV's but recently built a 21 car garage because he was tired of not being able to park near his house.

Also, most of our oil does not come from the Middle East - the US largest import partner is actually Venezuela - and quite a bit more of our oil comes from Mexico and South America. The SUV's that most people drive today are also actually pretty comparable to the sedans and larger cars of today - my Jeep Cherokee gets 19 mpg and the 2002 average mpg for passenger cars in 2000 was 22 mpg. The other thing that is important to consider is the location of where a person lives - I live in an area where it snows 8 months a year so not owning an SUV would be incredibly stupid on my part - primarily because it would be a lot harder to get to work if I'm stuck in the snow. Less work = less spending money = less money to keep the economy going.

Much like the people that created the "What Would Jesus Drive" Campaign these people are hypocrites - wanting hard working Americans to follow their every whim and desire while they continue to waste our resources by using their private jets instead of public planes and building 21 stall garages that use resources that could have been used to build a house. The people behind this campaign are less concerned about the source of our oil and more concerned about guilting people into following their beliefs so that they can continue to waste these resources and make the American public feel responsible.

-Joe!

[Lucky Bob]

Maybe we should look into alternate resources. Like coal! :rolleyes:

[Jedigreedo]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
No. This ad campaign is the most ludacris thing I've heard in a long time and the people behind the campaign are hypocrite's.

If they aren't driving SUVs, then while the terrorists can't buy a gun with what they get from them, they can certainly buy a candy bar to munch on while waiting for a gun. :mad:

[FavreFactor]

No. You can't just put all the blame on the SUV's. Its other cars to you know. :(

[Zechs]

Well I guess I'll keep supporting terrorsim seeing as how I can't go anywhere without filling my car with gas. I'd like to see them walk to Houston from where I live (a one hour drive) then lets see them complain about gas.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

No. Driving an SUV supports overhyped high school athletes. :rolleyes:

[RogueMartian]

I think driving SUV's support terrorism more than smoking pot does.

Lets face it, the terrorists would have NO money if americans would demand that the government spend money on the american infrastructure rather than on bombs to bomb people already living in total poverty. If you could take a train or bus to work, A train or bus that had cup holders or tables that let you read your newspaper and drink a cup of coffee while on the road, you would right?

Americans at the VERY LEAST could buy fuel efficient cars. SUVs gets maybe 10-15 miles per gallon, a honda or other small car can get more than twice that. When I go on a road trip I can go over 200 miles on half a tank of gas in my toyota.

Why do people in the suburbs need SUVs? I have seen 5 people and their backpacks fit into a civic. I have seen 5 people and their things fit into a two seater pickup truck. Technically not legal, but it can be done. So a normal family could easily live with a family sedan or station wagon. I have heard the really stupid people say they want SUVs so they will survive an accident. To them I say: PUT DOWN YOUR CELL PHONES AND DON'T GET INTO ACCIDENTS.

Every penny of our overpriced gas will pay for terrorists. It will also pay for us to go into war with countries that did nothing to us so that our gas prices will go down. Money spent on pot will make a fat columbian fatter. So in conclusion: Soccer mom's need to smoke marijuana and tell the kids to walk their sorry butts to soccer practice.

Hehe, I'm gonna get flamed for this one.

[The Landstander]

Originally posted by RogueMartian
I think driving SUV's support terrorism more than smoking pot does.

Lets face it, the terrorists would have NO money if americans would demand that the government spend money on the american infrastructure rather than on bombs to bomb people already living in total poverty. If you could take a train or bus to work, A train or bus that had cup holders or tables that let you read your newspaper and drink a cup of coffee while on the road, you would right?

Americans at the VERY LEAST could buy fuel efficient cars. SUVs gets maybe 10-15 miles per gallon, a honda or other small car can get more than twice that. When I go on a road trip I can go over 200 miles on half a tank of gas in my toyota.

Why do people in the suburbs need SUVs? I have seen 5 people and their backpacks fit into a civic. I have seen 5 people and their things fit into a two seater pickup truck. Technically not legal, but it can be done. So a normal family could easily live with a family sedan or station wagon. I have heard the really stupid people say they want SUVs so they will survive an accident. To them I say: PUT DOWN YOUR CELL PHONES AND DON'T GET INTO ACCIDENTS.

Every penny of our overpriced gas will pay for terrorists. It will also pay for us to go into war with countries that did nothing to us so that our gas prices will go down. Money spent on pot will make a fat columbian fatter. So in conclusion: Soccer mom's need to smoke marijuana and tell the kids to walk their sorry butts to soccer practice.

Hehe, I'm gonna get flamed for this one.

i'm somewhat with you on that one.

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

Most families may want to move without renting a U-Haul. Some people have big families that could use an SUV.

Some people may simply be stupid, and WANT an SUV.

I agree that using these monster trucks does increase our dependence on foreign oil--but that's it.

I believe if an American wants to buy a fuel-efficient car, fine. If they want a tank for a car, and they can afford it, that's also fine.

Because terrorists would still hate America even if all we drove were golf carts. Until the US can show the Arab-ME that America and Israel doesn't plan to rule the world and destroy all traces of Islam, we are going to have ME-terrorism whether SUVs exist or not.

And if the ME isn't involved, we can always have our homegrown terrorists take a crack at us.

[incidentally: ever heard of ELF? Vandalism won't drive the point home. Rather, your idiotic actions may make Ralph Nader shoot at an endangered species of wilderbeest....]

[Pilmedium]

Originally posted by RogueMartian
Americans at the VERY LEAST could buy fuel efficient cars. SUVs gets maybe 10-15 miles per gallon, a honda or other small car can get more than twice that. When I go on a road trip I can go over 200 miles on half a tank of gas in my toyota.

True; people must enjoy paying extra money to fuel SUVs. :rolleyes:


Why do people in the suburbs need SUVs? I have seen 5 people and their backpacks fit into a civic. I have seen 5 people and their things fit into a two seater pickup truck. Technically not legal, but it can be done. So a normal family could easily live with a family sedan or station wagon. I have heard the really stupid people say they want SUVs so they will survive an accident. To them I say: PUT DOWN YOUR CELL PHONES AND DON'T GET INTO ACCIDENTS.

Yes, cell phones cause accidents. Trying to prevent them is better than trying to weaken their effects.


Every penny of our overpriced gas will pay for terrorists.

That is where I disagree. It has already been pointed out that much of the oil used by the United States is not from the Middle East.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Pilmedium
True; people must enjoy paying extra money to fuel SUVs. :rolleyes:
Well there are Diesel-Electic Buses (like a train the Diesel motor keeps the batteries tops of that powers the motors that drives the wheels) This technology has always proven economical and fuel effiecent but uhh well SUVs are not as big as buses (yet) so I'm not sure such a rig would fit with current technology but if it did people would be able to have SUVs without needing so much fuel.

[RZetlin]

Originally posted by Anubis C. Soundwave
Most families may want to move without renting a U-Haul. Some people have big families that could use an SUV.


Well there are other model of cars that can handle large loads like vans, pickup trucks and station wagons.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by RZetlin
Well there are other model of cars that can handle large loads like vans, pickup trucks and station wagons.

All of which average what an SUV does in terms of miles per gallon.

As for ELF - I have heard of them and they operate within Pennsylvania - attempting to destroy the Winter Green Gorge Bridge Project in Erie and then destroying a car lot outside of Pittsburgh.

The idea that all of our money from gasoline goes to support terrorism is ludacris. Not only does a vast majority of our oil come from sources not located within the Middle East. When campaign's like this are launched we need to look at the source of who's speaking - and with this group in particular we can tell there are some serious issues, especially when their telling us from their private jet (which last time I checked used a ton of gasoline to fly from place to place) not to drive our SUV's. Research has shown that family sized sedans, vans, pick-ups and SUV's all get about the same miles per gallon effeciency - roughly 17.5 to 19 mpg. If this is unacceptable should people with families of five that aren't going to fit into a Ford Fiesta or Chevy Geo be allowed to drive two vehicles? Wouldn't that increase their use of gasoline? Apparently ad campaigns like this don't need to be based in logic or even fact but people still believe it because they refuse to do the research to understand the true dynamic of what is actually going on.

-Joe!

[RogueMartian]

Originally posted by Anubis C. Soundwave
Most families may want to move without renting a U-Haul. Some people have big families that could use an SUV.


How often to families move? If you move every two weeks, by all means, get yourself an SUV, I won't argue with that. But people who live in the suburbs and are planning on staying there til little junior is 18 DO NOT NEED SUVs.

As for big families? This is another RARE case. People in the upperclass suburbs that can afford a $25,000+ SUV don't typically have fifteen kids. If you have the average 2.3 kids, a sedan is fine. If you want more space, station wagons exist for just that purpose. But people buy SUVs because they're trendy, and they want to say "yeah, me and my family can go up to the mountains anytime we want". They forget to mention that they don't know what direction the mountains are in. The reason people get SUVs is because they don't want to drive vans. Even though a minivan has the same amount of space and gets superior gas mileage, no one wants to tell their friends they just bought a minivan.

As for whether or not terrorists will hate us. The reasons middle eastern and asian countries hate us is because we put their people to work almost no money so that we don't have to pay our own people. There isn't a man, woman, or child in arab nations that doesn't know that they could be killed off in a heartbeat if they say that they don't want to sell us oil anymore.

Another reason terrorists hate us is because of Israel. We support Israeli terrorism. We can sugar coat it all we want, but lets face it, we give billions of dollars a year so Israeli's can keep an apartheid state. And the reason we do this is because we want to keep an active military presence in the middle east to make sure that if anyone tries to stop us from getting our oil we can kill them right quick, and other countries won't let us do that.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by RogueMartian

As for whether or not terrorists will hate us. The reasons middle eastern and asian countries hate us is because we put their people to work almost no money so that we don't have to pay our own people. There isn't a man, woman, or child in arab nations that doesn't know that they could be killed off in a heartbeat if they say that they don't want to sell us oil anymore.

Another reason terrorists hate us is because of Israel. We support Israeli terrorism. We can sugar coat it all we want, but lets face it, we give billions of dollars a year so Israeli's can keep an apartheid state. And the reason we do this is because we want to keep an active military presence in the middle east to make sure that if anyone tries to stop us from getting our oil we can kill them right quick, and other countries won't let us do that.

Perhaps you could explain "Isreali terrorism" because last I checked they had never allowed a homocide bombers into the "occupied" territories to kill Palestinian people. Also, last I checked the Israeli charter didn't call for the destruction of an Arab state - unlike the PLO charter that calls for Israel to be pushed into the sea. Israel is the only nation in the Middle East (aside from Turkey) that allows for free and open elections and includes people of every creed - there is even a party that maintains seats within the government that is completely Arabic. For years (and even to this day) Palestinian citizens were allowed to work in Israel and their economy sky rocketed - it wasn't until the terrorist Arafat called for the intafada that their economy plunged. Also, when Jordan expelled the refugees from their nation only one country offered them sanctuary - Israel. Israel is not a terroristic or apartheid state and there is no evidence to support such a view.

As for the hatred of the Middle East - it follows a pattern that was very much in force during Hitler's time in power. The pattern is called scapegoating - the Jewish people in Germany held much of the wealth, much like America does today. In an effort to rally the people around him Hitler claimed it was the Jewish people who were destroying the German economy - much like Iraq, Iran and PLO leadership place the blame of their own governmental failures upon the USA. This technique allows for the government to put the blame upon another entity without ever trying to fix the problem - leading to an increase of hatred for whoever they have blackballed.

With that said - let's please keep this thread on topic.

-Joe!

[DJ Raza]

If you want more space, station wagons exist for just that purpose.

I keep seeing people mention "station wagons", but there aren't many companies that still make them. Aside from Subaru, Ford, BMW, Mercedes and Saturn... what other companies make station wagons?

Let's examine and break it down here:

Subaru: Basically expensive and not too large. Its more "sporty" than an average "station wagon".

Ford: This is the only one that holds valid. Yes, maybe more families should drive Taurus or Escort wagons with economical
four and six cylinder engines. Too bad both vehicles are manufactured cheaply and break down easily and often. Not to mention they don't have good safety records (Escort wagons that is).

BMW: Cost more than most common SUVs.

Mercedes: Cost more than most common SUVs.

Saturn: Small station wagons, that are safe, but don't feel safe. They also lack much in the luxury factor.

Also... how do station wagons of the past add up?

Your tipical eighties (wood panel) station wagon was either a Buick LeSabre Estate Wagon, Impala Wagon or Caprice Classic Wagon. All of which came with either a 307 or 305 V-8 by carburation. Meaning, they used more oil and gas than your tipical SUV of today (Toyota 4Runner; Ford Explorer; Buick Rendevous; etc.). I'm not even going to bother mentioning station wagons of the seventies and further back (they used unbelieveable amounts of gas and oil).

A lot of people arguing against SUVs act like every single one of them is an Excursion or Suburban. Lots of SUVs these days are good on gas. Most SUVs only have six-cylinder or small eight-cylinder engines. Not to mention the fact that they ALL use fuel-injection which conserves a major amount of gas.

Yes, there's massive SUVs out there like the Excursion with the optional V-10 package, but the average SUVs of today don't have outragous engines. Just because some of them are massive vehicles, doesn't mean they have massive engines.

I also heard people mention minivans, aside from maybe the Toyota Sienna and Honda Odyssey, minivans are junk. They break down very quickly and they're just not built to last. The first thing that usually goes is the brakes, then the transmission. I see it happen all the time. They just don't build some cars like they used to.

People mostly buy SUVs due to consumer reports. SUVs are very safe and they're built to last. I used to own a '89 Toyota 4Runner, and it had 586,775 miles on it when it died (blew a head gasket). It also had a 2.2 liter 4-cylinder engine that got about 22-26 MPG (miles per gallon). SUVs are built with more quality and luxury today than most minivans and station wagons, and at the same time they also conserve gas.

Both of these ads are completely full of lies because they consistently lack facts and factual information. SUVs do not support terrorism (which has been pointed out many many times in this thread by many many people for factual reasons), and marijuana is not trafficked from the Middle East. Neither one of these ads hold ANY truthful information. None.

[jeffrey 228]

Well I have to say yes, but I'm not sure about it and all, also these types of SUV can also carry bombs and explosives that it is easy to store, yet that is why at some border checks they have to do this and all.

[FavreFactor]

Don't terrists like big bold white vans to drive around in!! I'm sure they can hold a lot of stuff. I think those would be used the most!!! :)

[DJ Raza]

Don't terrists like big bold white vans to drive around in!! I'm sure they can hold a lot of stuff. I think those would be used the most!!!

What are you even talking about?

What signifigance does this have to do with anything we're discussing here?


Please, think before you post. Its just more considerate that way (and avoids SPAM).

[wonderfly]

To those that said the media gave a free pass to the commercials that said buying drugs support terrorism: they didn't. I remember seeing several times on the news around that period news items discussing the commerecials, and wether they were correct. Most of the people who were vehemontly opposed to those commercials airing were liberal pundits, who, of course, don't want to see the war on drugs succeed, (either because A. they truly feel it is a waste of time or B. because they don't want their secret supply of drugs to be cut off). Since most liberals are neo-hippies, (the type that think all war is bad, and drugs aren't harmful) I suspect it's B.

One of the liberals who opposed the "drugs = terrorism" commercials was Arriana Huffington, who is one of the main supporters of this Detroit Project. I guess she learned from the Govt. campaign she opposed, and came up with this "SUV= Terrorsm" spot.

Of the 3 commercials:

1. Drugs = Terrorism
2. SUV's =Terrorism
3. Jesus wouldn't drive an SUV.

The 3rd one is the most repugnant. To say that Jesus is opposed to SUV's is absurd. Not because it may or may not be true, but because they bring religion into a political debate. And that's something to be wary of every time it happens.

[RogueMartian]

Bringing religion into a political debate makes baby jesus cry.

[The Landstander]

now that i think about it, the SUV = Terrorism link is very weak, at best.

the commercial seems to claim:

[list=1]
SUVs get less miles per gallon than other cars.
If SUVs get less miles per gallon, then they need more gas.
Gas = Oil.
Oil comes from the Middle East.
Terorists come from the Middle East.
[/list=1]

sounds like one of those logic proofs i had to take in Math 2 last year. :p

and call me a neo-hippie if you must, be the war on drugs has been a complete failure (however, thats another thread).

[Krayenhoff]

Most of the people who claim that buying SUVs supports terrorism are the same people who are steadfastly opposed to arctic drilling, not to mention either own SUVs or consume lots of energy themselves. They have no credibility.

Not all of our oil comes from the Middle East, either. Venezuela and Nigeria also chip in a good deal.

[wonderfly]

Let's do the linkage:

You fill up your gas tank, (for any car): your money goes to the oil companies. The oil companies get their oil from many locations, one of which happens to be the Middle East. The Middle Eastern Governments use the money to live like fat cats. So why would that support terrorism? How is the money getting from the rich governments to the terrorists, who want to overthrow those governments? It's a shaky, flawed argument. I guess the liberal pundit's answer is because while the Government's over there live like fat cats, the regular people go hungry. Thus, the regular people wanna overthrow those governments, and to destroy America.

Using that standard, since we buy goods from China, all those poor kids in the factories will grow up to hate America, and thus become terrorists. But we see that just doesn't happen.

The only possible link I can see is that Saudi Arabia (and others) give money to Palastinian terrorists to attack Isreal. But Saudi Arabia is NOT going to give money to Al Queda, not when that organization is trying to overthrow the Saudi royal family.



On the other hand, let's do the linkage for buying drugs = terrorism. You buy illegal drugs from the local dealer. The local dealer earns enough funds to increase his organized crime. He buys guns and keeps his portion of the city under his thumb through strong arm tactics. The people that have to live in that area become terrorized through all the crime. Oh, but if you mean overseas terrorism, then how do you think Columbain drug lords stay in power, continuing to attack the governments of Columbia and Venezuela. I'm sure the people who have to live in South America appreciate American, (and European, to be fair) drug users funding the crime in their countries.

But I digress...

[The Landstander]

Originally posted by wonderfly
On the other hand, let's do the linkage for buying drugs = terrorism. You buy illegal drugs from the local dealer. The local dealer earns enough funds to increase his organized crime. He buys guns and keeps his portion of the city under his thumb through strong arm tactics. The people that have to live in that area become terrorized through all the crime. Oh, but if you mean overseas terrorism, then how do you think Columbain drug lords stay in power, continuing to attack the governments of Columbia and Venezuela. I'm sure the people who have to live in South America appreciate American, (and European, to be fair) drug users funding the crime in their countries.

But I digress...

well, that's true (to a point...). i can't totally deny that drug buying = terrorism, im saying that the war on drugs only makes this problem worse.

consider this. drugs aren't illegal, and are availible through legal means. this gets rid of the black market. this way, the local dealer doesn't earn funds (who would want to deal with a criminal when they have other options), and therefore can't keep good control over the city. the drug war seems to have focused (more recently, anyway) on the small time drug dealer, i.e. the local guy who grows his own and sells it. by getting rid of these guys, you are just creating a better environment for the big guys (where the terrorism links might actually be) to get more powerful.

the thing is, people use drugs and always will. the war on drugs just doesn't accept this idea. plus, the drug war has led to the arrests of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who simply happen to enjoy the occasional joint. the war on drugs has also recently stopped focusing on problem drugs (speed, for example) and their new target is marijuana (reefer madness), a relatively harmless drug that has many medical and industrial uses and could potentially become a big business.

[DJ Raza]

the thing is, people use drugs and always will. the war on drugs just doesn't accept this idea. plus, the drug war has led to the arrests of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who simply happen to enjoy the occasional joint. the war on drugs has also recently stopped focusing on problem drugs (speed, for example) and their new target is marijuana (reefer madness), a relatively harmless drug that has many medical and industrial uses and could potentially become a big business.

Exactly. I'm not trying to get off topic, but this is completely accurate.

[Shnay]

Originally posted by wonderfly
Most of the people who were vehemontly opposed to those commercials airing were liberal pundits, who, of course, don't want to see the war on drugs succeed...because they don't want their secret supply of drugs to be cut off). Since most liberals are neo-hippies, (the type that think all war is bad, and drugs aren't harmful)

Come on, now. That was uncalled for. If you want to talk about specific people, that's fine, but don't go making statements about how "most liberals" don't want their drug supply cut off.

Secondly, the ads about drug use and terroism were most certainly not implying terror in the cities, or terror in Columbia. They were specifically playing off people's fears of al-Qaeda related terrorism, and that's not right. And, of course, it is not right to use the same tactic (even if it is in jest) to discourage the ownership of SUVs.

If you don't want people to smoke marijuana, tell them the real reasons why. If you don't want people to own SUVs, tell them the real reasons why. Using these ridiculous scare tactics isn't helping anything or anyone.

[Stardust]

These radicals usually don't have this kind of information backed up by good research. They usually stand on what they believe and don't provide a good argument.

The funny thing is that the lady who's advocating the SUV = terrorist claim has her own private jet and limo....like those don't use a ton of gas...

My roommate heard her on the radio the other day and she could NOT explain herself for the life of her. I think it just ends up making her look stupid.

[ccffan01]

They support being a moron. I wouldn't say terrorism.

[J J Gittes]

We should all do what the Daily Show said. Buy electic cars. They only support terrorism when you're going up a hill.

This maybe a little off topic, but the worst argument so far has been the "what would Jesus drive" campaign. I was going through the Bible and I realized something. Every where Jesus went, 12 of his dispiles went too. Jesus would be forced to drive the biggest SUV around to hold all those people.

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by DrWeird
well, that's true (to a point...). i can't totally deny that drug buying = terrorism, im saying that the war on drugs only makes this problem worse.

consider this. drugs aren't illegal, and are availible through legal means. this gets rid of the black market. this way, the local dealer doesn't earn funds (who would want to deal with a criminal when they have other options), and therefore can't keep good control over the city. the drug war seems to have focused (more recently, anyway) on the small time drug dealer, i.e. the local guy who grows his own and sells it. by getting rid of these guys, you are just creating a better environment for the big guys (where the terrorism links might actually be) to get more powerful.

the thing is, people use drugs and always will. the war on drugs just doesn't accept this idea. plus, the drug war has led to the arrests of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens who simply happen to enjoy the occasional joint. the war on drugs has also recently stopped focusing on problem drugs (speed, for example) and their new target is marijuana (reefer madness), a relatively harmless drug that has many medical and industrial uses and could potentially become a big business.

Well, to be fair, I didn't like the "Drugs = Terrorism" commercial either, because it was obvious that the Bush Administration was using the ads as an attempt to combine the War on Terrorism with the War on Drugs. It's possible, but it's not the easiest thing to do. They were simply playing off of fears of Al Queda, which is, I feel, the wrong tactic.

But, then again, I just thought of something else. I remember hearing on The Oreilly Factor about how the Taliban was getting large portions of their money from the selling of Opium. It seems Afganistan has huge fields where farmers grow Opium, and the Taliban and Al Queda were selling those on the black market. That's where a good portion of their funds were coming from. So, yes, drugs do fund terrorism.

But then Bill Orielly reported that the Bush Administration, in the Spring and Summer of last year, (after the Taliban had been overthrown), was prepared to let the Opium farmers of Afganistan continue to grow the crop for the foreseeable future, instead of destroying those fields and making them plant something else. Bill even had a military commander on who was saying why it was strategically important to let the Opium production continue for now. The basic gist is, their trying to rebuild Afganistan's economy, to make the country more stable, so their letting the Opium be sold for now, because those funds will help stabelize the country.

But I have to admit this is a double standard. If they want to fight the Drug Lords of Columbia, then they need to stamp out the Drug Lords of Afganistan as well.

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Shnay
Come on, now. That was uncalled for. If you want to talk about specific people, that's fine, but don't go making statements about how "most liberals" don't want their drug supply cut off.


Well, I say that because, from personel experience, most people who advocate that the War on Drugs is evil are drug users, (mostly marijuna). Of course these people are going to be biased against the War on Drugs.

If you wish me to bring up specific individuals, then take a look at Bill Mahar. He's admitted to using drugs. He sees the War on Drugs as ridiculous. He's a libertarian, and like many libertarians, he feels that it's not the govt. business what he does to his body. Of course he's going to be biased against the War on Drugs!

Still...I kinda felt bad about typing that statement about Liberals when I first wrote it, but most people who have that opinion are indeed Liberals, (or libertarians, a different breed of thinkers). I don't mean to generalize people, but I don't know of a better term for people who hold this opinion. To be fair, I use to be what could be considered a liberal, (now I'm more of a moderate conservative) but there are some liberal values I like defending. Sorry if I offended.


Originally posted by Shnay
Secondly, the ads about drug use and terroism were most certainly not implying terror in the cities, or terror in Columbia. They were specifically playing off people's fears of al-Qaeda related terrorism, and that's not right. And, of course, it is not right to use the same tactic (even if it is in jest) to discourage the ownership of SUVs.

If you don't want people to smoke marijuana, tell them the real reasons why. If you don't want people to own SUVs, tell them the real reasons why. Using these ridiculous scare tactics isn't helping anything or anyone. [/B]

I agree overall. Like I said, the commercials left a bad taste in my mouth as well.

[Shnay]

Originally posted by wonderfly
Still...I kinda felt bad about typing that statement about Liberals when I first wrote it, but most people who have that opinion are indeed Liberals, (or libertarians, a different breed of thinkers). I don't mean to generalize people, but I don't know of a better term for people who hold this opinion...Sorry if I offended.

It's cool. It wasn't so much that I was "offended," I just thought it was unfair and kinda out of place in the discussion. But whatever, all's forgotten.



I was going through the Bible and I realized something. Every where Jesus went, 12 of his dispiles went too. Jesus would be forced to drive the biggest SUV around to hold all those people.

See? They never consider all the information before making the ads. :D