Are you in favor of SUV's

wrote:
> Yet another of the environuts with their own set of facts,
> chooses to jump in. LOL

We got facts, you got denial.
When are you going to face your addiction?

in article , at
wrote on 12/23/04 11:09 AM:

> Yet another of the environuts with their own set of facts,
> chooses to jump in. LOL
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> william lynch wrote:
>>
>> in article , at
>> wrote on 12/23/04 8:42 AM:
>>
>>> The difference is minuscule as a percentage. The fact that
>>> properly belted passengers in larger cars are less likely to be
>>> injured or killed, is great in comparison. Do some research. No
>>> mater how you choose to look at SUV's, the fact remains if
>>> larger, safer, SUV's were not available more people would be
>>> injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents
>>>
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> william lynch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in article , at
>>>> wrote on 12/22/04 5:42 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> According to the NHTSA around 8% of ALL new vehicles, sold in the
>>>>> US, will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS
>>>>> bags, IN THEIR LIFETIME! Less than 2% of ALL accident of ALL
>>>>> types of vehicles result in a rollover. Records show that the
>>>>> biggest majority of rollover accident are a result of striking or
>>>>> being stuck by something, not from a vehicle maneuver. Hardly a
>>>>> 'tendency' to rollover. The fact is the laws of physics dictate
>>>>> that even if a vehicle is lifted up to a 55% angle the 'tendency'
>>>>> is to fall back upon it wheels. If height of the vehicle was a
>>>>> cause of rollovers then one should expect to see six wheeled
>>>>> trucks rolled over almost daily. I would suggest you do a bit of
>>>>> research before you chose to comment on a subject of which you
>>>>> apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say in my
>>>>> opinion
>>>>
>>>> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
>>>> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
>>>> Strange how that works out.
>>
>> That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
>> anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
>> the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
>> themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
>> braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
>> straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
>> US after three years plus.

Everything I said is either patently obvious or easily verifiable.
Isn't it true that the bumpers are much higher than the standard
on passenger cars for decades? Aren't almost all SUVs heavier
than the 6,000 lb. figure used in designing residential streets?
Doesn't that weight reduce the effectiveness of braking systems
by more than half? Isn't Osama still laughing at you idiot
conservatives, as he rakes in the money from his oil family?
Aren't you too stupid to live?

in article , at
wrote on 12/23/04 11:09 AM:

> Yet another of the environuts with their own set of facts,
> chooses to jump in. LOL
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> william lynch wrote:
>>
>> in article , at
>> wrote on 12/23/04 8:42 AM:
>>
>>> The difference is minuscule as a percentage. The fact that
>>> properly belted passengers in larger cars are less likely to be
>>> injured or killed, is great in comparison. Do some research. No
>>> mater how you choose to look at SUV's, the fact remains if
>>> larger, safer, SUV's were not available more people would be
>>> injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents
>>>
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> william lynch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in article , at
>>>> wrote on 12/22/04 5:42 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> According to the NHTSA around 8% of ALL new vehicles, sold in the
>>>>> US, will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS
>>>>> bags, IN THEIR LIFETIME! Less than 2% of ALL accident of ALL
>>>>> types of vehicles result in a rollover. Records show that the
>>>>> biggest majority of rollover accident are a result of striking or
>>>>> being stuck by something, not from a vehicle maneuver. Hardly a
>>>>> 'tendency' to rollover. The fact is the laws of physics dictate
>>>>> that even if a vehicle is lifted up to a 55% angle the 'tendency'
>>>>> is to fall back upon it wheels. If height of the vehicle was a
>>>>> cause of rollovers then one should expect to see six wheeled
>>>>> trucks rolled over almost daily. I would suggest you do a bit of
>>>>> research before you chose to comment on a subject of which you
>>>>> apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say in my
>>>>> opinion
>>>>
>>>> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
>>>> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
>>>> Strange how that works out.
>>
>> That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
>> anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
>> the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
>> themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
>> braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
>> straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
>> US after three years plus.

Everything I said is either patently obvious or easily verifiable.
Isn't it true that the bumpers are much higher than the standard
on passenger cars for decades? Aren't almost all SUVs heavier
than the 6,000 lb. figure used in designing residential streets?
Doesn't that weight reduce the effectiveness of braking systems
by more than half? Isn't Osama still laughing at you idiot
conservatives, as he rakes in the money from his oil family?
Aren't you too stupid to live?

in article , John David Galt at
wrote on 12/23/04 5:04 PM:

> wrote:
>> Yet another of the environuts with their own set of facts,
>> chooses to jump in. LOL
>
> For once we agree. Anyone who believes that SUVs' bumper height is illegal
> or that our gas purchases go "straight into the pockets of Osama" should go
> report those crimes to the police immediately -- so they can throw him in
> the loony bin where he belongs.

So you cannot even tell that the bumpers are much higher on SUVs?
You need that glasses perscription fixed.

in article , John David Galt at
wrote on 12/23/04 5:04 PM:

> wrote:
>> Yet another of the environuts with their own set of facts,
>> chooses to jump in. LOL
>
> For once we agree. Anyone who believes that SUVs' bumper height is illegal
> or that our gas purchases go "straight into the pockets of Osama" should go
> report those crimes to the police immediately -- so they can throw him in
> the loony bin where he belongs.

So you cannot even tell that the bumpers are much higher on SUVs?
You need that glasses perscription fixed.

You are wrong once again. Replying to your posts is a waist of
time, bye

mike hunt



william lynch wrote:
>
> in article , at
> wrote on 12/23/04 11:09 AM:
>
> > Yet another of the environuts with their own set of facts,
> > chooses to jump in. LOL
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> > william lynch wrote:
> >>
> >> in article , at
> >> wrote on 12/23/04 8:42 AM:
> >>
> >>> The difference is minuscule as a percentage. The fact that
> >>> properly belted passengers in larger cars are less likely to be
> >>> injured or killed, is great in comparison. Do some research. No
> >>> mater how you choose to look at SUV's, the fact remains if
> >>> larger, safer, SUV's were not available more people would be
> >>> injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> mike hunt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> william lynch wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> in article , at
> >>>> wrote on 12/22/04 5:42 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> According to the NHTSA around 8% of ALL new vehicles, sold in the
> >>>>> US, will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS
> >>>>> bags, IN THEIR LIFETIME! Less than 2% of ALL accident of ALL
> >>>>> types of vehicles result in a rollover. Records show that the
> >>>>> biggest majority of rollover accident are a result of striking or
> >>>>> being stuck by something, not from a vehicle maneuver. Hardly a
> >>>>> 'tendency' to rollover. The fact is the laws of physics dictate
> >>>>> that even if a vehicle is lifted up to a 55% angle the 'tendency'
> >>>>> is to fall back upon it wheels. If height of the vehicle was a
> >>>>> cause of rollovers then one should expect to see six wheeled
> >>>>> trucks rolled over almost daily. I would suggest you do a bit of
> >>>>> research before you chose to comment on a subject of which you
> >>>>> apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say in my
> >>>>> opinion
> >>>>
> >>>> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
> >>>> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
> >>>> Strange how that works out.
> >>
> >> That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
> >> anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
> >> the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
> >> themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
> >> braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
> >> straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
> >> US after three years plus.
>
> Everything I said is either patently obvious or easily verifiable.
> Isn't it true that the bumpers are much higher than the standard
> on passenger cars for decades? Aren't almost all SUVs heavier
> than the 6,000 lb. figure used in designing residential streets?
> Doesn't that weight reduce the effectiveness of braking systems
> by more than half? Isn't Osama still laughing at you idiot
> conservatives, as he rakes in the money from his oil family?
> Aren't you too stupid to live?

You are wrong once again. Replying to your posts is a waist of
time, bye

mike hunt



william lynch wrote:
>
> in article , at
> wrote on 12/23/04 11:09 AM:
>
> > Yet another of the environuts with their own set of facts,
> > chooses to jump in. LOL
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> > william lynch wrote:
> >>
> >> in article , at
> >> wrote on 12/23/04 8:42 AM:
> >>
> >>> The difference is minuscule as a percentage. The fact that
> >>> properly belted passengers in larger cars are less likely to be
> >>> injured or killed, is great in comparison. Do some research. No
> >>> mater how you choose to look at SUV's, the fact remains if
> >>> larger, safer, SUV's were not available more people would be
> >>> injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> mike hunt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> william lynch wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> in article , at
> >>>> wrote on 12/22/04 5:42 PM:
> >>>>
> >>>>> According to the NHTSA around 8% of ALL new vehicles, sold in the
> >>>>> US, will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS
> >>>>> bags, IN THEIR LIFETIME! Less than 2% of ALL accident of ALL
> >>>>> types of vehicles result in a rollover. Records show that the
> >>>>> biggest majority of rollover accident are a result of striking or
> >>>>> being stuck by something, not from a vehicle maneuver. Hardly a
> >>>>> 'tendency' to rollover. The fact is the laws of physics dictate
> >>>>> that even if a vehicle is lifted up to a 55% angle the 'tendency'
> >>>>> is to fall back upon it wheels. If height of the vehicle was a
> >>>>> cause of rollovers then one should expect to see six wheeled
> >>>>> trucks rolled over almost daily. I would suggest you do a bit of
> >>>>> research before you chose to comment on a subject of which you
> >>>>> apparently have little or no knowledge, or at least say in my
> >>>>> opinion
> >>>>
> >>>> At no point in here did you say word one about SUV rollover
> >>>> statistics vs. the same stats for all other passenger vehicles.
> >>>> Strange how that works out.
> >>
> >> That's horsepucky. SUVs present a clear and present danger to
> >> anyone who comes close to them. This includes the occupants of
> >> the SUV itself. The bumpers are illegally high, the vehicles
> >> themselves are too heavy for most streets *and* for their own
> >> braking systems, and the money from the gas they guzzle goes
> >> straight into the pockets of Osama, who is still laughing at the
> >> US after three years plus.
>
> Everything I said is either patently obvious or easily verifiable.
> Isn't it true that the bumpers are much higher than the standard
> on passenger cars for decades? Aren't almost all SUVs heavier
> than the 6,000 lb. figure used in designing residential streets?
> Doesn't that weight reduce the effectiveness of braking systems
> by more than half? Isn't Osama still laughing at you idiot
> conservatives, as he rakes in the money from his oil family?
> Aren't you too stupid to live?

http://europe.autonews.com/feature.cms?featureId=13

These are the cars available in Europe. Notice American cars are
available there, but the opposite is not true. They are regulated out
of the market. Talk about a monopolistic hungry lion.

You mostly find here Japanese mowing machines. No wonder SUVs sale so
good. Look at this beauty...
http://europe.autonews.com/page.cms?pageId=366

http://europe.autonews.com/feature.cms?featureId=13

These are the cars available in Europe. Notice American cars are
available there, but the opposite is not true. They are regulated out
of the market. Talk about a monopolistic hungry lion.

You mostly find here Japanese mowing machines. No wonder SUVs sale so
good. Look at this beauty...
http://europe.autonews.com/page.cms?pageId=366

An important question for finding who's behind environmental
destruction, war and a few other evils...

(Poll...http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread...04#post1207004)

"Is there a Puppeteer running the show?"

I can almost see the strings that move the puppets...

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan
for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of
publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more
sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The
supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is
surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past
centuries."
-David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address
to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/chapter14.htm

But is there such a thing as a "puppeteer" running all the little
puppets? Well, they seem to dance to the same tune. But it could also
be that all the moneyed people act out of vested interests, where MONEY
is the puppeteer...

the trilateral commission
December 20, 2000

One need not be a conspiracy freak to be just a tiny bit scared of the
Trilateral Commission, a global network of politicians and plutocrats
whom allegedly form the core of an impending one world government.
Beyond that, the group's agenda is largely unclear, and the secrecy
surrounding the organization makes it all the scarier. It could be that
it's a completely altruistic group which can save humanity; it could
also usher in the New World Order. They could even be the advance team
of the Antichrist!
You decide . . .

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id65/pg1/

http://committed.to/justiceforpeace


__________________
"My struggle is not against the puppet, but against the puppeteer"