Fires, Vandalism Hit Cars at Dealership

[LandRover]

This thread is straying away from the original issue... So, let's take it even further.

The only perfect solution to the gas and pollution issue would be an alternate power source. It would also be ideal if all current vehicles could be modified to run on it so millions of vehicles wouldn't have to be junked.

The fact of the matter is, no one really cares to push alternate power technologies. They have oil, and all they care about is selling it. There's no way that I'm going to believe that we can put a man on the moon, but can't figure out a reliable alternate fuel or power source that's easy on the environment. I think their whole attitude is "we'll worry about it when we run out of oil".

I don't think that electric cars are the answer. Think of the increased demand for power that would require more and more power plants so that everyone could power their cars. Not to mention the pollution from those very same power plants.

I think solar energy and or hydrogen fuel will be the answer, or at least part of it. Unfortunately, I'm starting to think it'll never become mainstream in our lifetime.

 

[Insane3D]

I don't think it's so much no one cares to develop the alternative fuel sources, it's more the powerful oil companies who would likely be hurt by it, and resist with all their vast resources. What about existing fuels like Ethanol that are made from everyday things like grain?

 

[LandRover]

Good Hydrogen Article

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: LandRover
Good Hydrogen Article

Good info..thanks. The main problem with Hydrogen now, from what I've read, is the fuel cells themselves. We have alternative fuels now that burn cleaner, like ethanol, so why not concentrate on them for the short term?


Also, I just want to add, I really can't complain about SUV gas mileage when I drive a modified V8 Mustang as my daily driver.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Is that what they are teaching you in community college nowadays? It seems you would like everyone to alter their way of life to coincide with yours, to apply your standards of right and wrong to the way they want to live their lives. Who are you to tell anyone how what to buy and how to live? You have 27 credit hours at a community college and somehow you are better than everyone else? [ ... ]

Did one of our most strident Bush-lite apologists really just say this? John-boy, you just summarized Bush's whole foreign policy in 25 words or less. Add the word "oil" and you could be the next Karl Rove.

(I've been trying to ignore stupid trolls, but this was too good to pass up.)

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: LandRover
Good Hydrogen Article

Good info..thanks. The main problem with Hydrogen now, from what I've read, is the fuel cells themselves. We have alternative fuels now that burn cleaner, like ethanol, so why not concentrate on them for the short term?


Also, I just want to add, I really can't complain about SUV gas mileage when I drive a modified V8 Mustang as my daily driver.

The main problem with hydrogen is finding a way to produce it. It takes energy to get pure hydrogen, where is that energy going to come from is the problem.

Hydrogen is also a difficult gas to work with. It leaks out of the smallest holes very easily and is explosive. That's a difficult combination. One advantage it does have is that it is lighter than air and will dissipate when released instead of pooling in low spots.

I hope those ELF people are aware of the terrorism laws which they can be charged with. We could be feeding them for a very very long time.

 

[mastertech01]

The consumer drives the industry, the industry doesnt decide everything that goes into building a vehicle. If there was no demand for SUV do you think they would be building so many? Look at the manufactureres who wouldnt have been caught dead building SUV's who now have at least one model.

Take that model T and add 4 wheel drive, 1500 pounds of accessories and safety devices, air conditioning, and TONS of polution control devices on it and see what your mileage would have been back then... It would have rolled about 2 MPH down hill and would have taken a tank of gas to go to market and back just once.

Until Americans stop being gluttons of luxury and wastefull energy consumption you will never get your desired economy. If you ALL want economy the auto makers would be glad to comply. They want to sell cars. They are reaping the profits from YOUR desire to have every whistle and bell on wheels combined with a clean environment and maximum safety.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
The consumer drives the industry, the industry doesnt decide everything that goes into building a vehicle. If there was no demand for SUV do you think they would be building so many? Look at the manufactureres who wouldnt have been caught dead building SUV's who now have at least one model.

Take that model T and add 4 wheel drive, 1500 pounds of accessories, air conditioning, and TONS of polution control devices on it and see what your mileage would have been back then... It would have rolled about 2 MPH down hill and would have taken a tank of gas to go to market and back just once.

Until Americans stop being gluttons of luxury and wastefull energy consumption you will never get your desired economy. If you ALL want economy the auto makers would be glad to comply. They want to sell cars. They are reaping the profits from YOUR desire to have every whistle and bell on wheels combined with a clean environment.

Well said. The problem isn't the trucks, it's the people who buy them. The HumVee is the epitome of arrogant, self-aborbed indulgence. It practically screams, "Look at me. I'm a selfish a-hole and I'll crush anyone who gets in my way." You can't blame the car companies for pandering to this market. If they don't make them, their competitors will.

This is one of the cases where government needs to step in, to nudge people to be responsible. While these trucks are wonderful for the owner, they are a hazard to other drivers and to the environment. There should be a stiff price for such self-indulgence.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: rbloedow Heh, I don't mind them blowing up Humvees, we don't need those glossed up, useless, tanks on our roads.

Is that what they are teaching you in community college nowadays? It seems you would like everyone to alter their way of life to coincide with yours, to apply your standards of right and wrong to the way they want to live their lives. Who are you to tell anyone how what to buy and how to live? You have 27 credit hours at a community college and somehow you are better than everyone else? You live a more "wholesome" life because you drive a pinto that gets 97 MPG? How about you take care of rblowdow and each of us will take care of ourselves. I don't think we need trailer parks in America, as they give us a dirty image; do I blow those up? I don't think we should community colleges in America, as they have classes that cost $69.95 and fail to educate our children; do I blow those up? I don't think they should have gay parades in NY; do I blow those up?

Turn your fvcking sarcasm meter on, you dickhead.

It just goes to show you that even people with an education can still be nimrods.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: mastertech01
The consumer drives the industry, the industry doesnt decide everything that goes into building a vehicle. If there was no demand for SUV do you think they would be building so many? Look at the manufactureres who wouldnt have been caught dead building SUV's who now have at least one model.

Take that model T and add 4 wheel drive, 1500 pounds of accessories, air conditioning, and TONS of polution control devices on it and see what your mileage would have been back then... It would have rolled about 2 MPH down hill and would have taken a tank of gas to go to market and back just once.

Until Americans stop being gluttons of luxury and wastefull energy consumption you will never get your desired economy. If you ALL want economy the auto makers would be glad to comply. They want to sell cars. They are reaping the profits from YOUR desire to have every whistle and bell on wheels combined with a clean environment.

Well said. The problem isn't the trucks, it's the people who buy them. The HumVee is the epitome of arrogant, self-aborbed indulgence. It practically screams, "Look at me. I'm a selfish a-hole and I'll crush anyone who gets in my way." You can't blame the car companies for pandering to this market. If they don't make them, their competitors will.

This is one of the cases where government needs to step in, to nudge people to be responsible. While these trucks are wonderful for the owner, they are a hazard to other drivers and to the environment. There should be a stiff price for such self-indulgence.

--------------------------------
The problem isn't the trucks or the people who buy them. The problem is that everybody feels like the worst in the world. The problem is that our world is built on an unconscious understanding that people feel useless inwardly and feel a need to fill that endless vacuum with things, and that that unconscious understanding expresses itself in supply and demand, the manipulation of those feelings of inferiority as a competitive urge to buy, to own, to have. He who dies with the most toys wins. The fault comes when an inner emptiness interfaces with advertising to create consumer demand. We are nothing but monkeys trained to buy buy buy. We think we express our individualism, our lifestyle, our prestige in the cars we buy. Like a bunch of preening birds we drive around in our colorful plumage hoping it hides our inner zero. If it destroys our world, who cares. I gotta fill that void.

It becomes an interesting question as to what to do about mechanical man. Failing to awaken a sleeping man who's is about to sleepwalk over a cliff, do you interject your own being to make him stop? What do the highest ethics demand? Do we let you destroy your grand kids by allowing you to go extinct?

 

[etech]

Time to write this thread off, moonie is here with his psycho-babble.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: mastertech01
The consumer drives the industry, the industry doesnt decide everything that goes into building a vehicle. If there was no demand for SUV do you think they would be building so many? Look at the manufactureres who wouldnt have been caught dead building SUV's who now have at least one model.

Take that model T and add 4 wheel drive, 1500 pounds of accessories, air conditioning, and TONS of polution control devices on it and see what your mileage would have been back then... It would have rolled about 2 MPH down hill and would have taken a tank of gas to go to market and back just once.

Until Americans stop being gluttons of luxury and wastefull energy consumption you will never get your desired economy. If you ALL want economy the auto makers would be glad to comply. They want to sell cars. They are reaping the profits from YOUR desire to have every whistle and bell on wheels combined with a clean environment.

Well said. The problem isn't the trucks, it's the people who buy them. The HumVee is the epitome of arrogant, self-aborbed indulgence. It practically screams, "Look at me. I'm a selfish a-hole and I'll crush anyone who gets in my way." You can't blame the car companies for pandering to this market. If they don't make them, their competitors will.

This is one of the cases where government needs to step in, to nudge people to be responsible. While these trucks are wonderful for the owner, they are a hazard to other drivers and to the environment. There should be a stiff price for such self-indulgence.

I almost agree with you right up till the point where you start getting the gov't MORE involved in the affairs of business. The gov't FORCING a market to change(what you call a nudge) by restricting and limiting companies could also be accomplished by encouraging the consumer to demand such things. Just like other energy products there should be an efficiency "rebate" or other incentives to purchase more efficient vehicles. This would encourage the consumer to drive the demand for more fuel efficient/cleaner vehicles. This approach would lead to more positive innovation than forcing "minimums" which companies will barely meet since it would be "good enough".

Bah, my dasm idealist side is showing....I better fix that...maybe I'll go kick a tree as penance

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

I guess America likes being OPEC's little b!tch. But I digress. The problem as I see is that the feds encourage people to buy and drive gigantic land barges. The tax breaks for vehicles over 6,000 pounds is huge. There have been numerous opportunities for Congress to close the tax loophole, but they have thus far refused to act. The Hummer and 38 other SUVs qualify. If the feds would just stop indirectly encouraging the SUV/light-truck market, it would be an even playing field. You should like that Cad

 

[csf]

I don't like SUV's but lots of other people seem to like them. They have money to afford them, so they buy them. Car manfacturers notice this and produce more of them to keep up with demand. It's absolutely none of your (or ELF's) business what other people should drive and spend their own money on.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess America likes being OPEC's little b!tch. But I digress. The problem as I see is that the feds encourage people to buy and drive gigantic land barges. The tax breaks for vehicles over 6,000 pounds is huge. There have been numerous opportunities for Congress to close the tax loophole, but they have thus far refused to act. The Hummer and 38 other SUVs qualify. If the feds would just stop indirectly encouraging the SUV/light-truck market, it would be an even playing field. You should like that Cad

yup, we're actively encouraging people to drive vehicles that are excessively dangerous to others. minivans are far safer then suvs but u know suvs are bought out of vanity. this vanity is why the bumpers are mismatched with cars. its irresponsible. one can be irresponsible in america as long as it doesn't affect others.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: etech
Time to write this thread off, moonie is here with his psycho-babble.

...and Monkey telling people how they should live their lives.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Heh, I don't mind them blowing up Humvees, we don't need those glossed up, useless, tanks on our roads.

Forget my previous post; you probably drive a Mongoose and feel like you are doing the world a favor.

How is it that a troll like you hasn't been banned yet?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess America likes being OPEC's little b!tch. But I digress. The problem as I see is that the feds encourage people to buy and drive gigantic land barges. The tax breaks for vehicles over 6,000 pounds is huge. There have been numerous opportunities for Congress to close the tax loophole, but they have thus far refused to act. The Hummer and 38 other SUVs qualify. If the feds would just stop indirectly encouraging the SUV/light-truck market, it would be an even playing field. You should like that Cad

No, IF people actually want to get serious about lessening our dependance on OIL, then they should offer POSITIVE solutions to encourage more efficient vehicles accross the board. That tax debate is a different issue. If you want less polution you have to encourage it on the consumer side and like most people said - it won't happen because we just don't care since we can afford the gas to feed it. Now if there were advantages to buying more efficient SUVs over those "evil" gas guzzling ones then consumers would create more of a demand for such vehicles.

PS - the tax "loophole" is for business - not your average consumer and I do believe it is set to expire in 2005.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess America likes being OPEC's little b!tch. But I digress. The problem as I see is that the feds encourage people to buy and drive gigantic land barges. The tax breaks for vehicles over 6,000 pounds is huge. There have been numerous opportunities for Congress to close the tax loophole, but they have thus far refused to act. The Hummer and 38 other SUVs qualify. If the feds would just stop indirectly encouraging the SUV/light-truck market, it would be an even playing field. You should like that Cad

No, IF people actually want to get serious about lessening our dependance on OIL, then they should offer POSITIVE solutions to encourage more efficient vehicles accross the board. That tax debate is a different issue. If you want less polution you have to encourage it on the consumer side and like most people said - it won't happen because we just don't care since we can afford the gas to feed it. Now if there were advantages to buying more efficient SUVs over those "evil" gas guzzling ones then consumers would create more of a demand for such vehicles.

PS - the tax "loophole" is for business - not your average consumer and I do believe it is set to expire in 2005.

CkG

Hey, you said you wanted less government involvement. I showed you a way we could do that right now. It would seem we'd be in agreement. It's not just for "business" anymore Cad It's also for self-employed people. I'm self-employed, I know a lot of other people who are too. I could take advantage of this tax loophole, in fact my CPA mentioned it to me. However, I have this rule I like to follow, "Don't be evil." That pretty much killed it for me.

Encouraging it on the consumer level is happening. The feds are, in small ways, encouraging hybrid vehicles. There are tax-breaks for owning one. In CA, you can drive 'em solo in the carpool lanes. That's a nice perk. There might be a few others...

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Heh, I don't mind them blowing up Humvees, we don't need those glossed up, useless, tanks on our roads.

Forget my previous post; you probably drive a Mongoose and feel like you are doing the world a favor.

How is it that a troll like you hasn't been banned yet?

Are you saying that people who take views that do not coincide with your ideologies should be banned? Oh, that's right, it's okay to tell people to "go f*ck a cow...cattlehumpers...morons...idiots," but as soon as you make a point contrary to the "anti-bush-kiddies," we are somehow trolling. Whatever, sir...pot...kettle...black.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess America likes being OPEC's little b!tch. But I digress. The problem as I see is that the feds encourage people to buy and drive gigantic land barges. The tax breaks for vehicles over 6,000 pounds is huge. There have been numerous opportunities for Congress to close the tax loophole, but they have thus far refused to act. The Hummer and 38 other SUVs qualify. If the feds would just stop indirectly encouraging the SUV/light-truck market, it would be an even playing field. You should like that Cad

No, IF people actually want to get serious about lessening our dependance on OIL, then they should offer POSITIVE solutions to encourage more efficient vehicles accross the board. That tax debate is a different issue. If you want less polution you have to encourage it on the consumer side and like most people said - it won't happen because we just don't care since we can afford the gas to feed it. Now if there were advantages to buying more efficient SUVs over those "evil" gas guzzling ones then consumers would create more of a demand for such vehicles.

PS - the tax "loophole" is for business - not your average consumer and I do believe it is set to expire in 2005.

CkG

Hey, you said you wanted less government involvement. I showed you a way we could do that right now. It would seem we'd be in agreement. It's not just for "business" anymore Cad It's also for self-employed people. I'm self-employed, I know a lot of other people who are too. I could take advantage of this tax loophole, in fact my CPA mentioned it to me. However, I have this rule I like to follow, "Don't be evil." That pretty much killed it for me.

Encouraging it on the consumer level is happening. The feds are, in small ways, encouraging hybrid vehicles. There are tax-breaks for owning one. In CA, you can drive 'em solo in the carpool lanes. That's a nice perk. There might be a few others...

No, I didn't want MORE in respect to forcing businesses to comform to regulations so as to change the market. Well, if there are tax-breaks for hybrids -then that is fine, but are people not buying them? Seems to me they are -which should propel the market that way More/broader "positive encouragement" will most likely speed up the process and continue research to be more efficient than the other guy so as to get the consumer's business.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess America likes being OPEC's little b!tch. But I digress. The problem as I see is that the feds encourage people to buy and drive gigantic land barges. The tax breaks for vehicles over 6,000 pounds is huge. There have been numerous opportunities for Congress to close the tax loophole, but they have thus far refused to act. The Hummer and 38 other SUVs qualify. If the feds would just stop indirectly encouraging the SUV/light-truck market, it would be an even playing field. You should like that Cad

This "loophole" is for the purchase of business equipment. This could be for a backhoe, frontendloader, an f-350, forklift, what ever. Yes an SUV falls into this catagory, and they should because they do have business utility.

 

[Moonbeam]

Reminds me of the Parliment of the Cheese Mites licking their lips over how to eat the Cheese. That they are only parasites won't be apparent till the cheese collapses from the holes. Then the finger pointing will really begin.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Well said. The problem isn't the trucks, it's the people who buy them. The HumVee is the epitome of arrogant, self-aborbed indulgence. It practically screams, "Look at me. I'm a selfish a-hole and I'll crush anyone who gets in my way." You can't blame the car companies for pandering to this market. If they don't make them, their competitors will.

This is one of the cases where government needs to step in, to nudge people to be responsible. While these trucks are wonderful for the owner, they are a hazard to other drivers and to the environment. There should be a stiff price for such self-indulgence.

I almost agree with you right up till the point where you start getting the gov't MORE involved in the affairs of business. The gov't FORCING a market to change(what you call a nudge) by restricting and limiting companies could also be accomplished by encouraging the consumer to demand such things. Just like other energy products there should be an efficiency "rebate" or other incentives to purchase more efficient vehicles. This would encourage the consumer to drive the demand for more fuel efficient/cleaner vehicles. This approach would lead to more positive innovation than forcing "minimums" which companies will barely meet since it would be "good enough".

Bah, my dasm idealist side is showing....I better fix that...maybe I'll go kick a tree as penance

CkG

Caddy, you're putting words in my mouth again. I didn't say anything to suggest that "nudg[ing] people to be responsible" meant "restricting and limiting companies" or "forcing minimums". You assume too much.

I also believe the best approach is influencing consumer demand. Rather than incentives for fuel efficiency* -- another drain on the federal budget -- I would go for stiff surcharges on SUTs based on their size and fuel efficiency. I don't think I'd target the smaller ones like Ford Explorers, but Expeditions and Escalades and HumVees -- nail 'em. Make the self-absorbed pay for their impact on oil consumption and traffic safety.

*My exception would be tax incentives to purchase efficient vehicles using renewable fuel sources. They are a long-term solution that will never get off the ground if we don't underwrite some of the R&D costs, the high entry cost to build supporting infrastructure, and the lack of a critical mass today to allow efficiencies of scale in production.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Well said. The problem isn't the trucks, it's the people who buy them. The HumVee is the epitome of arrogant, self-aborbed indulgence. It practically screams, "Look at me. I'm a selfish a-hole and I'll crush anyone who gets in my way." You can't blame the car companies for pandering to this market. If they don't make them, their competitors will.

This is one of the cases where government needs to step in, to nudge people to be responsible. While these trucks are wonderful for the owner, they are a hazard to other drivers and to the environment. There should be a stiff price for such self-indulgence.

I almost agree with you right up till the point where you start getting the gov't MORE involved in the affairs of business. The gov't FORCING a market to change(what you call a nudge) by restricting and limiting companies could also be accomplished by encouraging the consumer to demand such things. Just like other energy products there should be an efficiency "rebate" or other incentives to purchase more efficient vehicles. This would encourage the consumer to drive the demand for more fuel efficient/cleaner vehicles. This approach would lead to more positive innovation than forcing "minimums" which companies will barely meet since it would be "good enough".

Bah, my dasm idealist side is showing....I better fix that...maybe I'll go kick a tree as penance

CkG

Caddy, you're putting words in my mouth again. I didn't say anything to suggest that "nudg[ing] people to be responsible" meant "restricting and limiting companies" or "forcing minimums". You assume too much.

I also believe the best approach is influencing consumer demand. Rather than incentives for fuel efficiency* -- another drain on the federal budget -- I would go for stiff surcharges on SUTs based on their size and fuel efficiency. I don't think I'd target the smaller ones like Ford Explorers, but Expeditions and Escalades and HumVees -- nail 'em. Make the self-absorbed pay for their impact on oil consumption and traffic safety.

*My exception would be tax incentives to purchase efficient vehicles using renewable fuel sources. They are a long-term solution that will never get off the ground if we don't underwrite some of the R&D costs, the high entry cost to build supporting infrastructure, and the lack of a critical mass today to allow efficiencies of scale in production.

sorry then

I don't agree with "surcharges"for size/efficiency perse, but a luxury tax would not upset me

Also, why are people fighting ethanol? It is a highly renewable resource and could help lessen our dependence on foreign oil a tad. My cars all run ethanol blends(10%)

CkG