The lastest assclownery from D.C.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 22, 2003, 12:12 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/busin ... c1&ei=5059

I'm as die hard a Republican as they come, but this stinks to me. A fucking $75,000 tax CREDIT for buying a gas guzzling luxo-sport ute? I understand wanting to help out businesses (like construction) that need to buy heavy duty trucks for daily operations, but not adding a proviso to exclude shit like Hummers, BMW's, ect. is just too fucking stupid for words.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 22, 2003, 1:02 am

Okay, this is what bugs me about the whole anti-suv movement. Does an SUV use a lot more gas than, say, a pickup truck? My instinct is to go with no, considering the body of like an F150 and an Explorer are nearly the exact same. So should people not drive pickup trucks either? And how do you get large items that you buy, perhaps a desk or a dresser, back to your house? Strap it on top of your Ford Fiesta? Or do you just get it delivered on a bigger truck that is less fuel efficient and takes an unnecessary trip to your house that they wouldn't have had to take if you had just taken it with you. That's the thing I don't get, really.

Yeah, I drive an SUV. I don't drive it because I think it's "cool" to own an SUV. I drive it because when I go places with friends I usually drive and it's a lot roomier than most sedans. When I used to drive a shitty little Mustang it was always cramped for everyone in there. I drive it because I live in Michigan and regardless of the accounts of SUVs in the ditch I see on this board, 4x4 > all in the snow. I drive it because I can fit a lot more shit in the back of it than I can a car. I still don't see why most everyone on this board hates them so much.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » January 22, 2003, 1:14 am

I think it has to do with the perception that these vehicles are glamourized by the ads for people to go into the mountains or across glaciers or through the desert when in fact the most off roading most of these vehicles see is when the owners miss the driveway and roll up on the lawn a few feet.

For the cost of one of those beasts do you really think any more than 10% of the owners would EVER let mudd get on them? Hell no, it might chip the paint or smudge the wax or whatever. For those owners who actually live the X-treme lifestyle of camping and river rafting or mountain biking down a mountain, I say more power to you. You deserve this type of vehicle. To the wenches that fly up behind me with their brights on while they are on their cell phone and drinking coffee, I say burn in hell bitch and use that 4 wheel drive to go around my fat slow 75mph driving ass.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » January 22, 2003, 1:20 am

.
The Axle of Evil

Read that and defend the FUV, er, SUV if you can.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 22, 2003, 1:25 am

Sylvus wrote:Okay, this is what bugs me about the whole anti-suv movement. Does an SUV use a lot more gas than, say, a pickup truck? My instinct is to go with no

an SUV is about twice as heavy as a standard pickup like an F150 or a sierra. So yeah, they are a lot worse on gas since vehicle weight is the prime factor determining fuel consumption not counting the actual engine.

people also tend to want to drive them like cars so they stomp on the fucking gas like they are dale fucking earnhardt in order to get them to move at a proper car-like rate when in reality they are ridiculously more heavy than a car.

I'm not sure the exact rates, but SUVs consume a lot more fuel than any other standard type of vehicle out there.

I read this article the other day. it was a pretty fucking retarded loophole to begin with, but increasing the loophole by a factor of three makes it even three times more stupid (putting it on par with other stupid things bush jr. has pulled off). it's a great move for executives and major stockholders in the big three auto makers that sell the most amount of SUVs, and its a great deal for the oil industry who stands to make more money at the pumps for every shleb that buys an SUV when they should be in something smaller and more fuel efficient. its also great for all those america-hating saudi oil barons that will now have more money to fund their america-hating campaigns. its bad for: everyone else.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 22, 2003, 2:20 am

SUVs support terrorism. I saw it on TV, it must be true.

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 22, 2003, 2:23 am

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 22, 2003, 2:35 am

That thing says my Honda Del Sol gets 29 mpg and that's 9 miles off cause I get between 38-40 mpg. Makes me suspect anything else on the page.

Interesting link though. Thanks for posting it.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 22, 2003, 2:50 am

Sylvus: a minivan is a superior product for every item on your list of SUV virtues. They are also safer, get better gas mileage, and allow for easier passenger access. You clearly drive an SUV because it is cool.

That is not what I came here to discuss. This tax plan is designed to allow companies to get tax credits for large (6000 lbs.), expensive trucks. This means beastly things like Hummers, Suburban XLs, as well as the heavy duty pickups that the original tax exemption was written for.

I noticed that quite a few companies have been using the smaller SUVs instead of sedans as company cars. Allowing companies to get tax credits for buying the prestige guzzlers to shuttle VIPs around town in is just sickening.

Pilsburry · Post by **Pilsburry** » January 22, 2003, 4:51 am

Eh, it seems about right for my car..it says my car with my engine and tranmission gets 33 MPG.

I can drive from Atlanta to Cincinatti ~500 miles on ~15 gallons(a full tank) = 33 MPG. So it seems accurate.

Also IMHO this write -off is lame, most SUV's resulting from it are not going to be used in an off-road situation or to transport large objects that can't fit in a car.

Right now our goal should be to LOWER gas consumption and SIMPLIFY tax laws. They are going to do the opposite of what this country needs.....as usual.

And I'm going to ave to agree with masteen...unless you drive off-road a mini-van suits carrying pasengers and cargo better, at a lower initial cost, better gas mileage and safer.....And if you think a lincoln navigator or some other luxury SUV will ever make it to a real off-road advanture that van can't handle...your crazy. Those people don't go driving off road in the mountains and if they did, they wouldn't do it in an expensive car, it would get scratches and dents.

So while perhaps you bought a SUV so you can transport friends comfortably, a mini-van was a better choice, you bought the SUV to look cool....I don't blame you but that's the facts...

Just as can say anyone who buys a mercedes or BMW etc did it to look cool....because ya sure it's a slightly higher quality car....but cars depreciate in value quickly, you still can only go a certain speed, they can only get so comfortable and as far as it holding up over time...screw it if you bought something cheaper you could buy a new cheap car 2-3x as often...and they would end up being cheaper and more reliable.

I'm perfectly happy in my 1996 Pontiac Sunfire 2 door 2.4L twin cam w/manual transmission (I bought it new). Why? Because it gets me where I'm going, it's reliable, and I didn't waste money...well ok I did waste money...because I paid sticker, I didn't feel like dicking around with the sale people.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 22, 2003, 9:39 am

masteen wrote:That is not what I came here to discuss. This tax plan is designed to allow companies to get tax credits for large (6000 lbs.), expensive trucks. This means beastly things like Hummers, Suburban XLs, as well as the heavy duty pickups that the original tax exemption was written for.

Can't you write business vehicles off as a capital (I think that's the right term) expense regardless?

Mini-van > SUV for 99.9% of the folks who drive them, especially given the reasons most give for buying one. My only problem with them are the morons who drive them just like a car. They roll easier, stop slower, etc..

Masekle · Post by **Masekle** » January 22, 2003, 10:05 am

1994 Toyota Truck 4WD

Fuel Type Regular
MPG (city) 19
MPG (highway) 22
MPG (combined) 20
Annual Fuel Cost $1163

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Worst me Best

15.3 9.4 tons 3.1

I likes my truck =)

pilsbury wrote .........And if you think a lincoln navigator or some other luxury SUV will ever make it to a real off-road advanture that van can't handle...your crazy.

Have you ever seen a mini van on the the dunes? its an offroad advanture with the possibility of scratches and dents, slightly less that a mountain trek. I think the navigator will go a little further than a vanagon

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 22, 2003, 10:18 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Sylvus wrote:Okay, this is what bugs me about the whole anti-suv movement. Does an SUV use a lot more gas than, say, a pickup truck? My instinct is to go with no
an SUV is about twice as heavy as a standard pickup like an F150 or a sierra. So yeah, they are a lot worse on gas since vehicle weight is the prime factor determining fuel consumption not counting the actual engine.

people also tend to want to drive them like cars so they stomp on the fucking gas like they are dale fucking earnhardt in order to get them to move at a proper car-like rate when in reality they are ridiculously more heavy than a car.

I'm not sure the exact rates, but SUVs consume a lot more fuel than any other standard type of vehicle out there.

Not True!!!

Ford F150 14/18 4.6 V8
Ford Explorer 14/18 4.6 V8

Same exact mileage

I read this article the other day. it was a pretty fucking retarded loophole to begin with, but increasing the loophole by a factor of three makes it even three times more stupid (putting it on par with other stupid things bush jr. has pulled off). it's a great move for executives and major stockholders in the big three auto makers that sell the most amount of SUVs, and its a great deal for the oil industry who stands to make more money at the pumps for every shleb that buys an SUV when they should be in something smaller and more fuel efficient. its also great for all those america-hating saudi oil barons that will now have more money to fund their america-hating campaigns. its bad for: everyone else.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 22, 2003, 10:28 am

Cartalas wrote:Ford F150 14/18 4.6 V8
Ford Explorer 14/18 4.6 V8

That's not comparing apples to apples..

Explorer - small vehicle
F150 - Full size

Ford Expedition 13/18 5.4 V8
Ford F150 15/19 5.4 V8

I used the 5.4 because your never see the smaller engine in an expedition unless you special order it.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 22, 2003, 10:34 am

Stupid tax code idea, as bad as people fucking and getting a tax credit for being too dumb to use protection.

SUV's are for people with small penii trying to prove something.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 22, 2003, 10:38 am

an SUV is about twice as heavy as a standard pickup like an F150 or a sierra. So yeah, they are a lot worse on gas since vehicle weight is the prime factor determining fuel consumption not counting the actual engine.

Bullshit, I say.

2003 Ford F150 (119") - Base curb weight. 4,039
If you load it up and get the supercrew cab (138") and 5.4l engine, your curb weight goes up to 5,110.
The base curb wieght on a 2003 Explorer Eddie Bauer (114") is 5100.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 22, 2003, 10:49 am

Masekle wrote:pilsbury wrote .........And if you think a lincoln navigator or some other luxury SUV will ever make it to a real off-road advanture that van can't handle...your crazy.

Have you ever seen a mini van on the the dunes? its an offroad advanture with the possibility of scratches and dents, slightly less that a mountain trek. I think the navigator will go a little further than a vanagon

Reading comprehension > you

He wasn't saying that the Navigator COULDN'T do better offroad than a van. His point is it WON'T.

How often do you think luxury SUV owners take those vehicles offroad.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 22, 2003, 10:53 am

All the proof I needed of 99.999999999% of SUV owners being fucktards was that the have leather interiors and clearcoat paints, along with chrome alloy rims as options.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 22, 2003, 11:04 am

Sylvus wrote:Okay, this is what bugs me about the whole anti-suv movement. Does an SUV use a lot more gas than, say, a pickup truck? My instinct is to go with no, considering the body of like an F150 and an Explorer are nearly the exact same. So should people not drive pickup trucks either? And how do you get large items that you buy, perhaps a desk or a dresser, back to your house? Strap it on top of your Ford Fiesta? Or do you just get it delivered on a bigger truck that is less fuel efficient and takes an unnecessary trip to your house that they wouldn't have had to take if you had just taken it with you. That's the thing I don't get, really.

Yeah, I drive an SUV. I don't drive it because I think it's "cool" to own an SUV. I drive it because when I go places with friends I usually drive and it's a lot roomier than most sedans. When I used to drive a shitty little Mustang it was always cramped for everyone in there. I drive it because I live in Michigan and regardless of the accounts of SUVs in the ditch I see on this board, 4x4 > all in the snow. I drive it because I can fit a lot more shit in the back of it than I can a car. I still don't see why most everyone on this board hates them so much.

Well said. Instinct is to react, just as I did, as say..."yeah wtf is up with this SUV, gas gussling trend?" But, you're right about the whole pick-up truck thing.

Plus it's progress. No big deal. 30 years earlier there were probably twice as many Vans driving the roads than SUV's today. I'm sure vehichles will trend back smaller in the next 20-30 years. Who the fuck knows hehe.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 22, 2003, 11:09 am

Toyota Tacoma 4WD - 2000
6 cyl, 3.4 L, Man(5), Regular 17 20 $1292 10.6 NA

That is only accurate when there is little traffic. I live in the valley so tend to do more stopping than going... it is close though.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 22, 2003, 11:11 am

Aabidano wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Ford F150 14/18 4.6 V8
Ford Explorer 14/18 4.6 V8

That's not comparing apples to apples..

Explorer - small vehicle
F150 - Full size

Ford Expedition 13/18 5.4 V8
Ford F150 15/19 5.4 V8

I used the 5.4 because your never see the smaller engine in an expedition unless you special order it.[/quote

Well ok Ill compare Expedition to f150 4wd

Expedition 13/17 5.4 v8 4wd
F150 14/17 5.4 V8 4wd

We are talking 1 mpg difference in the city come on!!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 22, 2003, 11:38 am

2 mpg * 30,000 vehicles * 1,000,000 miles adds up to a lot of (excess) polution and fuel used. Average mileage is what, 15k miles per year/vehicle now?

Not to mention the money an individual will save on fuel during the life of a vehicle. It's like having a cheaper interest rate on a loan.

Fuel cost for 100,000 miles @ 14mpg = $11,785 @ $1.65 gal
Fuel cost for 100,000 miles @ 16mpg = $10,312 @ $1.65 gal

Fuel cost for 100,000 miles @ 22mpg = $7500 @ $1.65 gal

miir · Post by **miir** » January 22, 2003, 11:45 am

So are you saying we should all drive one of those hideous new Honda hybrid 'cars'?

They get something like 60mpg.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 22, 2003, 11:46 am

Aabidano wrote:2 mpg * 30,000 vehicles * 1,000,000 miles adds up to a lot of (excess) polution and fuel used. Average mileage is what, 15k miles per year/vehicle now?

Not to mention the money an individual will save on fuel during the life of a vehicle. It's like having a cheaper interest rate on a loan.

Fuel cost for 100,000 miles @ 14mpg = $11,785 @ $1.65 gal
Fuel cost for 100,000 miles @ 16mpg = $10,312 @ $1.65 gal

Fuel cost for 100,000 miles @ 22mpg = $7500 @ $1.65 gal

Hold the Press I now know who Aabidano is!!!!!!

We have all seen him on TV.

He is the guy in the infomercial thats says " If you can place 10 small ads"

miir · Post by **miir** » January 22, 2003, 11:49 am

Rofl, that gas mileage page lists a Ferrari 456 as a 'subcompact' and a Bentley Continental as a 'compact'.

He is the guy in the infomercial thats says " If you can place 10 small ads"

Hahaha.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 22, 2003, 11:50 am

the SUV and Terrorism ad campaign is stupid.

that being said, i know i won't be buying an SUV anytime soon, because for me fuel economy is an important factor in buying a car.

that being said, this sort of legislation is pretty disgusting.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 22, 2003, 11:52 am

The Toyota hybrid is a better vehicle than the Honda, and it's not butt ugly. Volkswagon diesels are the best deal if your looking for economy IMO.

I own two trucks, the Toyota gets ~22mpg most of the time. It will probably get traded in on a diesel Jetta or hybrid in the next year or so.

The other gets ~15mpg, that drops to around 12 pulling the boat, which gets about 2-3mpg and has a 100 gallon fuel tank.

I need a tax break for owning them prz.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 22, 2003, 11:58 am

Voronwë wrote:the SUV and Terrorism ad campaign is stupid.

that being said, i know i won't be buying an SUV anytime soon, because for me fuel economy is an important factor in buying a car.

that being said, this sort of legislation is pretty disgusting.

That ad is a joke, supporting terrorism haha. The only thing I want to ask them is " DO they Drive a car,truck,Bus,moped,motercycle," because they all use Gas!!! And to me supporting Terrorism OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS or a little is just as bad.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 22, 2003, 12:39 pm

Of course it's bad Cart, but it's no less retarded than the "if you buy drugs you support terrorism" ads. If you really got down to brass tacks, the fuel you purchase for your vehicle is much more likely to be funding terrorism over purchased illegal drugs.

That's why I liked the commercial so much. Despite it being extreme, it certianly is more plausable than the drug commercial of the same theme.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 22, 2003, 12:48 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Of course it's bad Cart, but it's no less retarded than the "if you buy drugs you support terrorism" ads. If you really got down to brass tacks, the fuel you purchase for your vehicle is much more likely to be funding terrorism over purchased illegal drugs.

That's why I liked the commercial so much. Despite it being extreme, it certianly is more plausable than the drug commercial of the same theme.

The ads had no value at all I agree maybe buying gas is supporting terrorrism but hell it does not matter if your driving a SUV or a fucking Honda your still buying gas.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 22, 2003, 1:02 pm

masteen wrote:Sylvus: a minivan is a superior product for every item on your list of SUV virtues. They are also safer, get better gas mileage, and allow for easier passenger access. You clearly drive an SUV because it is cool.

I will definitely give you the gas mileage one with no argument. Easier passenger access, I don't know about that, the front seats are about the same to get in and out of and I hate the whole crouching down getting into the back of a minivan. I also think for hauling things in the back, towing purposes, and driving in snow or through mud my SUV is clearly superior. They could make 4x4 minivans though, I'm not aware of the available options on many minivans.

Safer... yeah, minivans don't have as high a chance at rolling over, but I'm not going to roll over either as I don't drive like an asshole. In vehicle-vehicle accidents I believe that SUVs are safer, at least for those people in the SUV. Perhaps I'm biased because my mother was nearly killed in '88 when a semi ran a red light and they collided. Cops on the scene said that had she been driving a smaller car (was in a Blazer at the time, before you ever heard the term SUV) she would have had no chance. Ever since then she has always driven SUVs as have I ever since I could afford one.

And you're goddamn right an SUV is cooler than a minivan, though that's still not the main impetus for me choosing an SUV. I guarantee that 90% of the SUV haters reading this thread could be driving a cheaper, more fuel efficient car than they do that looks like a piece of shit (see: Honda Insight). Aesthetics is always a factor.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 22, 2003, 1:02 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Of course it's bad Cart, but it's no less retarded than the "if you buy drugs you support terrorism" ads. If you really got down to brass tacks, the fuel you purchase for your vehicle is much more likely to be funding terrorism over purchased illegal drugs.

Using that line of thinking, George W Bush is the biggest supporter of terrorism on the planet.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 22, 2003, 1:04 pm

How about "If you pay taxes, you're supporting terrorisim"? That has a distinct ring to it.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 22, 2003, 1:04 pm

I think we need a "Terrorist free" oil company.

All the oil would come from Alaskan wildlife preserves and wells dug within the Edmunton city limits..

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 22, 2003, 1:09 pm

Aabidano wrote:I think we need a "Terrorist free" oil company.

All the oil would come from Alaskan wildlife preserves and wells dug within the Edmunton city limits..

What about the Seals?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 22, 2003, 1:11 pm

I hate those commercials... There are so many things that can be supporting terrorism. If a raghead owns a music store, buying a new cd is all of a sudden supporting terrorism. Peoples hands are in many pockets all over the place, but it is NOT the buyers to blame or shame, fuck that.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » January 22, 2003, 1:25 pm

A little off topic.
On the radio today they talked about the peace rallies going on with the slogan of "No Blood For Oil". They joked about how these people prolly left the rally in their SUV's and stopped to fill up before going home.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 22, 2003, 1:26 pm

Cartalas wrote:What about the Seals?

Dunno, guess we could get a little oil from them. They do make nice jackets.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 22, 2003, 1:30 pm

Fash wrote: If a raghead owns a music store...

lovely

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 22, 2003, 1:32 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Fash wrote: If a raghead owns a music store...
lovely

Ouch I missed that

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 22, 2003, 1:36 pm

I never miss a racial slur. Its too disgustingly ignorant for me to not notice. Pisses me the hell off more than anything too.

Oh, but I forget, we are all white Republican males on this board.

miir · Post by **miir** » January 22, 2003, 1:37 pm

What the fuck is a Raghead?

No wonder some arabs think americans are ignorant, arrogant fuck-ups.

Well, at least Fash has now labeled himself as a rasict piece of shit.
It's nice to know who the racists are.

Mort · Post by **Mort** » January 22, 2003, 1:40 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:A little off topic.
On the radio today they talked about the peace rallies going on with the slogan of "No Blood For Oil". They joked about how these people prolly left the rally in their SUV's and stopped to fill up before going home.

Exactly..... and MANY of those assclowns drove across the country to the DC rally. Fucking terrorists supporters!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 22, 2003, 1:41 pm

It's slang. What's wrong is how everyone is so goddamn sensitive these days. There are chinks, Deigos, waps, Micks, Rag-heads, red-necks, etc etc etc. So what?

People on here are so hypocritical. I hear redneck thrown around all the time, but no one has said shit. Now all of the sudden we are all defenders of racials slurs over rag-heads? Dot-heads? 7-11 owners?

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 22, 2003, 1:48 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It's slang. What's wrong is how everyone is so goddamn sensitive these days. There are chinks, Deigos, waps, Micks, Rag-heads, red-necks, etc etc etc. So what?

People on here are so hypocritical. I hear redneck thrown around all the time, but no on ehas said shit. Now all of the sudden we are all defenders of racials slurs over rag-heads? Dot-heads? 7-11 owners?

Racial slurs are for the ignorant. But I knew you were an ignorant twat long ago. Your postings precede you. If you are so unbelievably STUPID as to think that calling someone a raghead or a wap is simply slang, why don't you go outside and call the next black person you see a nigger and see how well he appreciates your astute understanding of "slang." Please do, you need a good ass-kicking.

Pilsburry · Post by **Pilsburry** » January 22, 2003, 1:51 pm

Easier passenger access, I don't know about that, the front seats are about the same to get in and out of and I hate the whole crouching down getting into the back of a minivan

Ona mini-van that has 2 sliding side doors as is becoming the standard.....there is not much I can say....Mini vans actually tend to have more head room then a SUV in the back. If you get in right next to the door well then your prety easy in and out..if you have to slide to the center of the seat then well....your still easier then in an SUV. And if you have to get in the 3rd row of seats, well then your ahead of an SUV already because in an SUV you would be hopping in the cargo area.

----------------------------------------------------

Yes Bacstab, I meant you won't see a Navigator on the sand dunes, I thought that was made fairly clear but obviuosly some people aren't too good with reading yet. Thanks for backing me up.

----------------------------------------------------

Sylvus I personally do drive a cheaper more efficent car. It's definately better then average fuel consumption and lower then avrage cost.

11k new. 33 MPG.

Could I afford an SUV? Yes, easily. Hell If I wanted to I could afford to buy YOUR SUV, with your wife still inside. Provided I wanted to dip into funds I prefer to leave untouched.

But the point is...why would I? Cars depereciate fast, hell the second you buy them and drive them off the lot you just lost like 33%. The gas spent is not an investment, unless your trying to accelerate global warming because you bought some land in canada dirt cheap.

Vehicles like Lincoln Navigators should never have come into existance. There shuld be no such thing as a luxury SUV....SUV = Sport Utility Vehicle. PEople who purchase lincolns are not into sports or utility, they are into having people be like "OMG he must be better then me because he has a big car" type effect.

Sell your stupid SUV and buy a bigger home....cars are to get from one place to another place, you want to entertain friends do it in your living room like a normal person...homes appreciate in value.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 22, 2003, 1:53 pm

Well I have news, you don't need to be ignorant or racist to use a racial slur.

I grew up in the air force, knowing nothing of racism until I saw it in others outside... I work in an office with a bunch of people who like to say Nigger, and I despise it. However I have no problem with referring to someone with a rag on their head as a raghead.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · January 22, 2003, 1:59 pm

Racial slurs are for the ignorant. But I knew you were an ignorant twat long ago. Your postings precede you. If you are so unbelievably STUPID as to think that calling someone a raghead or a wap is simply slang, why don't you go outside and call the next black person you see a nigger and see how well he appreciates your astute understanding of "slang." Please do, you need a good ass-kicking.

I wouldn't put myself in harms way by doing such a stupid thing. However, black people have taken the sting out of that word by using it in their language 3000000 times a day.

You can say that using racial slurs are for the ignorant all you want. They only offend sensitive people. I have heard all the Guinea, Deigo, and greasy italian jokes and comments...and guess what I don't care. Words mean little. Substance over symbolism, not the opposite.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » January 22, 2003, 2:01 pm

Fash wrote:Well I have news, you don't need to be ignorant or racist to use a racial slur.

I grew up in the air force, knowing nothing of racism until I saw it in others outside... I work in an office with a bunch of people who like to say Nigger, and I despise it. I do however have no problem with referring to someone with a rag on their head as a raghead.

You may not be racist towards blacks but you are toward Middle Easteners if you refer to them collectively as ragheads. And you did in your example. Most Middle Easteners do not wear the turban you so respectfully call a "rag" so your attempt to justify your racial slur failed. The fact you refer to it as a rag and not what it is is ignorant alone.

So yes, you are racist and you are ignorant.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 22, 2003, 2:03 pm

Hmmmm we have gone from SuV's to Race I love how FV turns.