Posted on 12/05/2008 3:46:03 AM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Make the Mormons walk ping to Today show list.
Eugenics Auto company
Do you really need a backseat? ;-)
Off to ZPG camp with them, to git thar mahnds raht!!
</s>
Nice looking family. I guess my sister and I (she has 4) and I have three will be in the hurt locker in a few years when we won’t be able to buy a vehicle to comfortably fit the family. My brother and his wife only have 1 child so far so he at this moment would be ok. Now I 100 percent want the automakers to not get the bailout. Before I was not sure which way we should go...this cemented my decision.
The back seat is for hauling planetocidal breeder larvae. Off with their heads!! Zero population growth! Gaia forever!
Unless they're gay, or Democrats, or have otherwise socially redeeming features.
Nuke the straight baby humans!
</sarc>
“Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date.”
Isn’t the idiea of a bailout for the Big 3 to help them survive?
Then forcing them to produce vehicles that no one is willing to buy hardly seems like an intelligent choice. Oh sorry we were talking about liberal/socialist weren’t we.....
They say that since it is very seldom they are all going to the same place at the same time, it was actually cheaper then running one big car all over.
Not at my age...
Nah. A three- or four-year-old Pacifica or other biggish vehicle (remember station wagons -- the original kid-haulers? still around) will always be available at a reasonable price and will last 150,000 miles minimum, until a Republican relief Congress shows up to push-broom away the remnants of Obammunism.
LOL. My nominee for line ‘of the morning!
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.
LOL!
What would happen to the price of used vans and SUVs if new ones aren’t being built?
“No-one is saying that SUVs and vans don’t have a purpose.”
Actually, the Times IS saying they don’t have a purpose. They are suggested they be phased OUT: meaning no more would be produced.
I’ll let Finkelstein know you think he’s a nut. Easy to do since I am Finkelstein.
As an SUV owner myself (yes, I am eeevil) may I say it is not about ‘purpose’ or ‘sense.’ It is about choice and the freedom of the market place. Any American, who has the coin to pay, should be able to drive whatever they want...when they want. If I can make the payments, insure it, and buy gas ITS MY CHOICE whether I drive my tank up the side of a mountain or five minutes to the grocery store. Its that slippery slope...I trully believe our freedoms are interlated. Take away one (choice of vehicle) and it ‘slides’ into a another take away.
Please just fill out this questionnaire the New York Times has prepared, with a few simple questions about your religious beliefs and voting habits, and the paper will let you know within 14 days whether you will be permitted to keep your SUV ;-)
And I don't anyone telling me about 'sense' and 'purpose.' I'LL DRIVE WHAT I CAN AFFORD!
Limos and taxis should be the first to go.
Mark Finklestein may be a nut, but he sounds more like a nosey old woman leaning across a fence. What a couple does in the bedroom is none of his business. He needs to get back to worrying about where the neighbors dogs are pooping and leave the children alone.
“”Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date.””
Does the Times actually use punctuation like that? If so it’s in worse shape than I thought. A plural “s” gets no apostrophe.
Signed - the Serif Patrol.
There. That's better. :)
If you eliminate the backseat, you’ll eliminate a lot of the children, right there!
The NYT might have not thought through the implications of phasing out vans and SUVs, but the premise of this article is misleading and inflammatory.
ARGHH!
Since I am Mark Finkelstein, I can confirm that he was writing with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I was satirizing the views of the New York Times, not endorsing them! The article is a cross-post from NewsBusters, which is dedicated to combating liberal media bias, and the Times editorial was a prime example of it.
0be looks to be enjoying curing the AGW.
“Congress could consider demanding that Detroit simply phase out S.U.V.’s and vans by a certain date.”
The NYT has shown exactly why the bailout is a bad idea; Congress has no more business designing and selling motor vehicles than it does telling us how many children we should have. Can you imagine a car designed and built by a bureaucrat? In concept it would be fuel efficient, cheap to buy, environmentally friendly and come only in earth tones so as not to offend the eye. In practice, it would be over budget, unreliable, behind in production, sold at a loss, and prone to randomly burst into flames. It would make Yugo’s look like Bentleys.
That’s what satire is intended to do. Cf., A Modest Proposal.
I am buying another firearm today... and more ammo!
LLS
LLS
No need to worry. Your next vehicle will be the TWOCAR. It has eight wheels and comes in two identical parts.
Nor were there any indications that this piece is satire.
My Uncle Bernie, who had 11 kids, kept an old Checker Marathon Limosine going for decades past it’s expiration date. The thing had four rows of seats, with two front doors and one door, on alternating sides, for the next three rows. With four kids on a seat, he had room for two hangers-on.
When that thing pulled up, you knew you were in for a good time.
Cut off the groceries to New York..... truckers boycott NYC
Abused?!??!?!
You sound like a libtard.
If a person can afford to buy, fuel and park an SUV in a city then they should damned well be able to. I fought for their freedom to do so.
“...how many people have you seen in NYC that just use these monsters to get from Queens to Jersey city?”
None actually as I haven’t been to Queens, or Jersey City, but other than the part about Finkelstein being a nut I have to agree with your post on the matter of purpose.
What I have observed is many >feel< more secure in the larger SU Vehicles. It happened to my wife after a Truck pulling a 53ft Trailer ran over her car on the way to work one day. Long story to describe, so I won’t, but at the time I had already noticed many people who really didn’t need the off road capabilities of SUV’s were buying them primarily for the “security” they felt driving the larger vehicles. They were buying them as self defense.
I cannot blame them for wanting such security after the discussion in our house after my wife’s car was crushed under the trailer of the truck the driver had made the illegal, and downright stupid Left turn in front of her from the far right lane. She was genuinely scared to drive a conventional sized sedan again, and wanted the security of a larger vehicle.
We decided to stick with the conventional sized automobiles we favor the past twenty years or so regardless of the accident, simply because the particular car we buy is quite safe, well constructed as proven by the fact that only her car was damaged, not her.
The first paragraph wasn’t a clue?
“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 déclassé, and a threat to the survival of the planet.”
Or the reference to the Times as the “Grey-but-barren Lady”?
If you have to explain something that obvious, the best course of action is to smile and back away slowly, keeping close watch on the person’s hands...
The end result is that someone - and it isn't the NYT - lost credibility as a result of this piece.
That really isn't the issue. What is important is who gets to decide what kind of car I drive, me or the government. Next it's how big a house I get to live in. Then how many kids I'm allowed to have. And on and on.
I’m reporting you to algore even as we speak ;-)
I spent a lot of time in Central and Eastern Europe.
Well, since the New York Times is also a failing business in a failing industry, shouldn't Congress demand that the New York Times' top executives resign? Surely only new management can enforce the deep cultural change needed to overhaul the newspaper industry...
Mark, the color is spelled "gray", not Grey, which is a name.
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.