TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists

New York Times ^ | 1/07/03 | KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

[newgeezer]

Better to be an "idealist" than a buttkissing socialist sheeple.

There you go again, Simpleton.

(me) The US gov't restricts access to a lot of our resources.

Other than uranium, which can easily be obtained with the right "paperwork" name another smarty pants?

Oil. Water. Lead. Coal. Deer meat. I'm sure there's more but, you get the picture (probably not but, I can hope).

The rest of your "rants" are not worty of response.

Only because you're incapable of thinking outside your little box, where everyone who dares to think even a little differently than you is...

willing to surrender your freedoms because you are a cowardly little chicken bleep.

You just keep right on making my point.

Have a good time on your high horse with your "more-patriotic-than-thou" attitude. You have proven yourself to be one of the truly elite FRetards on the forum. Congratulations.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

All I can say is that when they knock at your door, you don't ask my medals to beg for help. As I'll just laugh and say "I told you so"....

You are a fool and an idiot. I hope your plastic world does not require the blood of any more of my friends to maintain than necessary.

[Servant of the Nine]

One more reason to open ANWR you Stupid Effing Greenies

And one more reason to get into the Middle East and Secure our oil supplies.

So9

[newgeezer]

All I can say is that when they knock at your door, you don't ask my medals to beg for help. As I'll just laugh and say "I told you so"....

I wouldn't trust your medals to make a decent paperweight. But, thanks just the same for making my point yet again, you flaming, chest-beating, knuckle-dragging FRetard.

Your latest blather serves to further reveal your true self as big talk and no action. It contradicts the big lie in your own FR profile, which scarcely belies your shallowness:

"I'll defend this nation and it's citizens (even the goofy jerkwad libs) to the death."

Thus, your word is unquestionably cheap. "Big" talk, "big" SUV, "big" maniacal ego... One might guess such behavior only hopes to compensate for a shortcoming...

[biblewonk]

We wouldn't have to if ecocommietreehuggers like yourself would get out of the way of us capitalists. The oil is there. We just have to be allowed to get it in our country.

I should have figured it out with a post like this.

[oldironsides]

Got to tell the military to stop using Hummer's. Got to tell Ted Kennedy to park that huge Chevy Suburban he rides his butt around in and most of all tell Al Gore not to lease 34 Chevy Tahoe's for his campaign staff the next time he runs for national office.

I am waiting for someone to make a comment on anything I may be driving. I would say that anyone using a larger vehicle is paying through the nose in state and federal taxes to do it.

[newgeezer]

I should have figured it out with a post like this.

You should have figured what out?

By the way, your post implies I wrote the words you quoted. (To: newgeezer, followed by an unattributed quote.) You know I didn't. Please be more careful in the future! :-)

[Nuke'm Glowing]

After reading the times on all your postings, I must ask; aren't you missing your good buddies in the bathouse? Or the city park in San Francisco? I mean, my God, you obviously hate freedom for everyone else but yourself...

[Darnright]

>>Your life was just fine before SUV's came on the scene, and the roads were a lot safer for the rest of us.<<

Define SUV. As I recall, there have been Jeeps of one sort or another since the '40's and the Ford Bronco was around in the '60's. International had a 4-wheel drive 30+ years ago. I recall a friend had a gigantic 4-wheel drive in 1971, called a GMC Jimmy.

None of those vehicles got great gas mileage. The roads were probably safer for you back then, since cars were, on the average, bigger.

[kaktuskid]

And the Suburban has been in production since the 1930's...and don't forget the Dodge Power Wagon!

[texasbluebell]

bttt

[jaime1959]

" Regardless of what you think about the idiocy of the ads, I don’t think that TV stations should have the right to refuse to run them."

So what you are saying is the Ministry of Truth and the Ministry of Propaganda should dictate that all ads must be seen and private businesses have no right to dictate what they broadcast. Comrade, I'm glad you're not in charge.

Comrade? My liberal friends would howl at that! If you’re to my right, you’re really out there.

They might be private businesses, but they’re the public’s airwaves. Obviously, you have to allow for taste and language, but ANY political speech, even including that of NAMBLA and the KKK, should be aired IF THEY HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT.

"I think that for all cases except clearly slanderous ads, anyone willing to fork over the dough should have access to the public airwaves."

Based on that logic, if a drunk drives up to your bar and he's already ripped you have to sell him alcohol. Bzzzttt...doesn't work that way, you have to allow private industries some freedoms for capitalism to work.

Sorry, but your analogy is faulty. The alcohol belongs to the bar owner; the airwaves belong to the public.

"To do otherwise is clearly a severe restriction on free speech, much more so than McCain-Feingold."

It is? So what you are stating, and you must either agree with this to back your statements up is that NAMBLA should be allowed to put advertisements on television, no matter how vile and disgusting they are.

As I said, NAMBLA, the KKK, anti-abortion groups, and that French idiot who thinks that the WTC/Pentagon attacks were perpetrated by the US government should all be allowed to run ads if they have the dough (and they don’t use offensive language or images).

I can't wait to see your response.