Saddams weapon of choice
Posted on 01/08/2003 11:57:05 AM PST by MrLeRoy
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Ratcheting up the debate over sport utility vehicles, new television commercials suggest that people who buy the vehicles are supporting terrorists. The commercials are so provocative that some television stations are refusing to run them.
Patterned after the commercials that try to discourage drug use by suggesting that profits from illegal drugs go to terrorists, the new commercials say that money for gas needed for S.U.V.'s goes to terrorists.
"This is George," a girl's voice says of an oblivious man at a gas station. "This is the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The screen then shows a map of the Middle East. "These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The picture switches to a scene of armed terrorists in a desert. "And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his S.U.V."
A second commercial depicts a series of ordinary Americans saying things like: "I helped hijack an airplane"; "I gave money to a terrorist training camp in a foreign country"; "What if I need to go off-road?"
At the close, the screen is filled with the words: "What is your S.U.V. doing to our national security?"
The two 30-second commercials are the brainchild of the author and columnist Arianna Huffington. Her target audience, she said, is Detroit and Congress, especially the Republicans and Democrats who last year voted against a bill, sponsored by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would have raised fuel-efficiency standards.
Spokesmen for the automakers dismissed the commercials.
Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said of Ms. Huffington, "Her opinion is out-voted every year by Americans who buy S.U.V.'s for their safety, comfort and versatility." He said that S.U.V.'s now account for 21 percent of the market.
In an interview, Senator Kerry distanced himself from the commercials. He said that rather than oppose S.U.V.'s outright, he believed they should be more efficient.
"I haven't seen these commercials," he said, "but anybody can drive as large an S.U.V. as they want, though it can be more efficient than it is today."
Ms. Huffington's group, which calls itself the Detroit Project, has bought almost $200,000 of air time for the commercials, to run from Sunday to Thursday. While the group may lose some viewers if stations refuse to run the advertisements, the message is attracting attention through news coverage.
The advertisements are to be broadcast on "Meet The Press," "Face the Nation" and "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and Washington.
But some local affiliates say they will not run them. At the ABC affiliate in New York, Art Moore, director of programming, said, "There were a lot of statements being made that were not backed up, and they're talking about hot-button issues."
Ms. Huffington said she got the idea for the commercials while watching the antidrug commercials, sponsored by the Bush administration. In her syndicated column, she asked readers if they would be willing to pay for "a people's ad campaign to jolt our leaders into reality."
She said she received 5,000 e-mail messages and eventually raised $50,000 from the public. Bigger contributors included Steve Bing, the film producer; Larry David, the comedian and "Seinfeld" co-creator; and Norman Lear, the television producer.
That would be true only if I was claiming you are Bill Clinton; are you really stupid enough to think that was my point? My point, of course, is that your weaselly semantic squirming resembles that of Bill Clinton---and since a statement about your argument is not a statement about you, it cannot be an ad hominem.
(By the way, that's ad hominem.)
Yes. It was the issue on which we began to talk.
You said they were equivalent. We now both agree, after I pointed out with no ad hominum attack or argument, that they are not.
Use of drugs or influence of drug use is a separate more broad issue.
I always wonder why you one topic WOD obsessed types are so disingenuous when talking about legalization.
Why don't you all simply say that you like drugs and they should be legal.
Why hide behind convoluted arguments about any and every thing. Why dance around it.
Why the obsession with the issue?
Because I don't like them---including the deadly addictive drugs tobacco and alcohol.
and they should be legal.
I've said it many times.
Why don't you stop lying about drug use by those who disagree with you?
Italics are optional; correct spelling is mandatory.
Whom am I lying about?
Whom am I lying about?
Me.
I do not believe you, simply put.
Perhaps I would if you actually spoke about the reasons for your obsession.
They advertise safety features for Volvos but the usually neglect mentioning the most major safety feature, i.e. the fact that they usually don't run and that you can only hurt yourself so badly sitting underneath a tree in a car. The 6-cylindar Volvos when they do run often look like a destroyer laying down a smoke screen in old Victory at Sea scenes.
A lady pulled into a friend's garage with one of those a while back and I yelled "Gee I didn't know El Producto made cars!!" and I know the lady heard it. Great fun...
Saddams weapon of choice
Perhaps I would if you actually spoke about the reasons for your obsession.
I owe no explanation to anyone willing to call me a liar to my face, but ... the right to use drugs is a direct corollary of the fundamental right to ownership of one's own body, and is a right denied not only by many liberals but by some self-styled "conservatives"---which particularly chaps my conservative hide.
Certainly not.
But why the one topic obsession?
And I would never call anyone a liar behind their back.
Read the rest of my post.
Why this one issue, out of the myriad issues out there, to the exclusion of all other?
Why the obsession?
Perhaps you could elaborate on this.
I know it is the major "right" the left claims in contemporary America upon which much of their social agenda argument is based.
Upon what do you base this right and how does it with with conservatism.
Interesting how you mind works.
Perhaps you some counciling. You likley have issues.
They get a reprieve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.