NYT: Make The Mormons Walk To Wal-Mart

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

In the social circles of the New York Times editorialists, it's OK to have one kid. Two is pushing the envelope. Three or more is tacky, and a threat to the survival of the planet.

That being so, there's really no reason to let any car bigger than a Prius be built. Doing so just encourages the unenlightened to overbreed. And so it is that in its editorial of today, the Grey-but-barren Lady suggests that as a condition of the Detroit bailout, "Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date."

[Poser]

“the color is spelled “gray”, not Grey, which is a name.”

Both are acceptable for the color.

[Scotswife]

She’ll certainly save alot of money going that route.

Thank you - we came very close to losing two that week (car accident)
One miracle and one terrible loss.
The Lord gives and He takes away.

[ExpatGator]

Your argument is a red herring and strawman combined. Try again, commie egalitarian puke.

P.S. You are questioning the patriotism of someone who has collected imminent danger pay.

[Balding_Eagle]

But for city driving, small cars make the most sense.

Evidently not.

Otherwise there would be more small cars and fewer big cars.

[GreyMountainReagan]

What is your point?

[Cronos]

Not really — for the reasons I stated — people wanted to have bigger cars to basically impress, but then others saw the big cars and needed to have big trucks for protection agaisnt the early adopters, so the game accelerated. SUVs and trucks as I said, have a purpose, but when you move them out of their environment to another one (the city environment), they change those dynamics. I repeat — city driving needs smaller cars — check Europe, Asia or Japan for that.

[gogeo]

Mark Finkelstein is a nut. No-one is saying that SUVs and vans don’t have a purpose, but the FACT is that SUVs and trucks have been abused — how many people have you seen in NYC that just use these monsters to get from Queens to Jersey city? Like everything in life, it has a purpose. SUVs are great for outdoorsmen, farmers, hunters, rangers etc. But for city driving, small cars make the most sense.

Oh, really? The NYTimes just did...

And so it is that in its editorial of today, the Grey-but-barren Lady suggests that as a condition of the Detroit bailout, "Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date."

Speaking of nuts...

[Cronos]

Do you support Islamic terrorists with your petro-dollars? Yes or no?

[gogeo]

The end result is that someone - and it isn't the NYT - lost credibility as a result of this piece...

Take a bow...

[Cronos]

I will stop when Americans realise that the safety of their country from Islam is more important than driving a big car filled with Arab oil. That's it, pure and simple. I suport drilling ANWAR, nuclear power, coal plants, more public transport in medium sized cities, more use of American corn ethanol etc

The caveat on ANWAR is that we need to use it wisely so future generations can use it and not depend on foreign oil

Also, if you READ my posts, I never called for a blanket ban on SUVs -- one poster here said she lived in rural areas in Virginia and another said that he needs to haul stuff around in his truck as part of his job and a third said that he just didn't fit in smaller cars.

Those are all valid reasons and exceptions. Answer me honestly, does Person A driving an SUV in the city only for city driving have as compelling a need as person B who's a farmer?

No.

Someone else said "what's next, hybrid harvesters, tractors..." -- and I called him out for trying to compare a city SUV to a necessary tool like a tractor.

Each additional drop of oil used where we can use alternatives is money needlessly going to jihadis.

[Cronos]

Freedom is not hte right to spend the countries wealth and give it to our enemies for one's own indulgence (note: I repeat, truckers, rural folks etc are not indulging in SUVs, but for them it is a necessity) is wrong. That is not freedom, but abuse of freedom, sucking the life=blood of America and setting up America's enemies just so one can say "I have the money to spend, so what?"

you think the greatest generation didn't go through sacrifices during WWII? Well, now's the time to step up -- all of us.

I use NY as a case in point, an example for all big cities in the Boswash, Chicago, LA, etc. areas because THERE, one can do without the big cars. Someone living in rural or semi-rural Alabama NEEDS the big truck, so why should he/she pay for the city folk who can do with other means?

Freedom means being ready to fight for our country, not just spend the country away and say "so what?"

[Cronos]

Cronos. Can you get it through your head that most on this thread believe that freedom is more important than security?

Freedom does not mean blowign up the country's money.

Keep believing that you are keepign your "freedom to spend America's money" during the next terrorist attack on America or Americans.

If we had folks like you during WWII, you'd be saying "Freedom to buy Nazi cars or Imperial Japanese cars and goods is freedom and is more important than fighting them."

I'm sure you also said during SAddam's time in the late 90s "Let's remove the embargoes against Saddam and buy Iraqi oil. It's my FREEDOM at stake to buy Iraqi oil" and no doubt you want to buy Ahmadinejad's oil too to support your "freedom to spend America"

[Cronos]

Good statement.

Let me ask: if you take an SUV and a normal sedan and test it for safety for accidents NOT INVOLVING another vehicle (like crashing into barriers, overturning etc), which type of vehicle is safe? Surprise, surprise, it isn't the SUV.

Next compare the two for accidents involving another vehicle of the same size and the sedan comes up on top due to stronger crash impact zones.

Next compare the two for accidents with another type of vehicle: and HERE, the SUV will trump because it rides up the sedan.

So, when one person buys an SUV, they force the rest to buy a larger car -- an "arms race" of larger vehicles.

Next, if you read car safety ratings, even tiny city cars (and I'm talking tiny Japanese cars <800 ccs that aren't even available in the US) are safe, the passengers walk away from accidents.

And, again, I'm not saying one size fits all -- One doesn't want or expect that Idaho farmer to drive a Ford Ka.

[restornu]

So, when one person buys an SUV, they force the rest to buy a larger car — an “arms race” of larger vehicles.

So should we also do away with Mack Trucks too?:)

[Cronos]

So, when one person buys an SUV, they force the rest to buy a larger car — an “arms race” of larger vehicles. So should we also do away with Mack Trucks too?:)

AGain -- you never read my comments -- I never said a blanket ban on SUVs -- you want to drive a MAC truck, you NEED it, no doubt if you're a trucker. An SUV also for off-roading is a need. Don't try and make this an all or nothing deal like the libs. Everything has it's place in the world -- including an SUV and that place ain't in the city.

[Cronos]

Then the NYTimes is idiotic. Everything has it’s purpose like I said — no blanket bans. These folks see the problem I outlined (people who dont’ need their gas guzzler sayind “it’s my freedom to drive what I want and spend the nations’ resources”) and I proposed a more effective way that doesnt’ penalize truckers or construction men/women or folks living in rural/semi-rural/small towns. Why should there be a ban on SUVs for those folks? no, they need it. For that matter, if Joe McMillion$$ wants to drive his gas guzzler in the city, then let him spend a good chunk more than the sensible bloke driving a city car and a lot more than the Idaho man driving his F-150 to the market. If he still wants to spend, then bully to him

[Cronos]

Warming up to my theme — the NYTimes idiocy of “banning SUV’s” is one extreme and the other is the folk who says “I want to buy a gas guzzler even if I don’t need it because it’s my freedom at stake” — both those extremes feed off each other and hit the guys in the middle (truckers etc who need the big vehicles and folks who want to drive economically but are scared by all the gigantic SUVs around them)

[dalereed]

“But for city driving, small cars make the most sense”

Small cars suck!!!

[Cronos]

Really? have you seen these?






In terms of safety these have among the highest ratings. in terms of cool, yes a lot. Are they meant to haul stuff around? No, that's your truck. Are they meant for off-road use? No, that's your SUV, but even SUVs can be small, like these

[ExpatGator]

You are on the wrong forum troll.