|
GM declares bankruptcy (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Yea, every society should respect human rights. |
Using your definition for "every society should respect human rights" (i.e let them drive larger cars than they need), all OECD countries already do, so what the hell are you on about? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
maybe because all of these other countries immigration policies are more friendly than those from the united snakes? Notice the people killing themselves to get there and their geographical proximity to the united states. What a stupid argument, if people from Greenland want to come here they can take a plane.
The peso will be worth more than the us dollar in a few years, so mexicans will not risk their lives to be drug mules to a population that can no longer afford them. |
LOL... don't be so quick to laugh off the US dollar. Canada's currency will be affected if it declines too.
Other countries have more lax immigration standards, I would imagine, because they don't have millions of people coming there to suck off free medical care, education, and so on. How strict can it be here anyway? There are untold millions of illegals here. Some illegal mexican dude who cuts grass in my development (at the request of the homeowner's association, not me) told me not too long ago (paraphrasing), "Hey, even if we are in the U.S. illegally, and living in what you call 'poverty', it's still a better situation than our own country." |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
of course it isn't. all western and industrialised nations are to blame. |
And it is those nations who are leading the way to reducing our carbon footprint and increasing our energy efficiency.
| quote: | | but as you said yourself, these rights are universal until they violate somebody else's rights. our continued wealthy lifestyles violate the rights of the less fortunate every day. |
Owning an F-150 truck does not infringe on anyone's rights.
| quote: | | im not singling out pick up trucks. it is merely an example of western greed, justified by "the rights to life, liberty, happiness, property" that is my contention. and people should at least admit that their lifestyles cause harm to others, rather than making crap comments about its their right to live however they choose regardless of the consequences for everyone else. |
Western greed? Dude, communism is dead bro..:p
Again, owning an F-150 truck does not infringe on anyone else's rights. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
I did that, and as I said, they had no safety stats. |
Oh... stats. I thought you were looking for ratings. Anyway I'm about spent on this discussion. Time to move on. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
I did prove it, but here's more:
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have done studies of the aggressiveness of vehicle designs. The term 'aggressiveness' is used to denote the average injury risk a vehicle imposes on occupants of other vehicles during collisions. A 2003 NHTSA study estimated that in vehicle to vehicle crashes, the design of minivans was 1.16 times as aggressive as cars, pickups were 1.39 times more aggressive, and SUVs were 1.71 times more aggressive than cars. When weight was included in the analysis, light trucks (including SUVs) were estimated to be 3.3 times more aggressive than cars in head on crashes and perhaps more so in side impact crashes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility |
I'm asking you to specifically prove pick up trucks like the F-150 cause more traffic accidents than any other car. I don't know how specific I can be. |
|
|
| elFreak |
wait what?
a post secondary education in america is more expensive than in any other of the big industrialized countries (private)
so is health care.
our health care is free here, so your theory holds about as much water as the raft the cuban is taking to escape a dictatorship. ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
LOL... don't be so quick to laugh off the US dollar. Canada's currency will be affected if it declines too.
Other countries have more lax immigration standards, I would imagine, because they don't have millions of people coming there to suck off free medical care, education, and so on. How strict can it be here anyway? There are untold millions of illegals here. Some illegal mexican dude who cuts grass in my development (at the request of the homeowner's association, not me) told me not too long ago (paraphrasing), "Hey, even if we are in the U.S. illegally, and living in what you call 'poverty', it's still a better situation than our own country." |
ps i agree the cdn dollar will be affected, it already has and it will be at par with the us dollar by the end of the summer. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
So you think laws should dictate what is right and wrong?
In Afghanistan you are allowed to stone women to death if they cheat on you, but that's okay, because it's allowed by law. |
You asked whether you could drive around an M1 Abrams battle tank. Clearly you don't have that right. It's also illogical to compare a pick up truck to a tank. Carry on. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Owning an F-150 truck does not infringe on anyone's rights. |
Yes it does, it's more likely to injure them.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I'm asking you to specifically prove pick up trucks like the F-150 cause more traffic accidents than any other car. I don't know how specific I can be. |
This is the third time I have posted the link.
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html |
|
|
| elFreak |
actually, with the proper permits you can drive and own a tank in the united states.
i watch that tank restoring show. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
I liked this section too:
| quote: | | This is a new idea, and one largely confined to North America. In Europe and Japan, people think of a safe car as a nimble car. That's why they build cars like the Jetta and the Camry, which are designed to carry out the driver's wishes as directly and efficiently as possible. In the Jetta, the engine is clearly audible. The steering is light and precise. The brakes are crisp. The wheelbase is short enough that the car picks up the undulations of the road. The car is so small and close to the ground, and so dwarfed by other cars on the road, that an intelligent driver is constantly reminded of the necessity of driving safely and defensively. An S.U.V. embodies the opposite logic. The driver is seated as high and far from the road as possible. The vehicle is designed to overcome its environment, not to respond to it. Even four-wheel drive, seemingly the most beneficial feature of the S.U.V., serves to reinforce this isolation. Having the engine provide power to all four wheels, safety experts point out, does nothing to improve braking, although many S.U.V. owners erroneously believe this to be the case. Nor does the feature necessarily make it safer to turn across a slippery surface: that is largely a function of how much friction is generated by the vehicle's tires. All it really does is improve what engineers call tracking—that is, the ability to accelerate without slipping in perilous conditions or in deep snow or mud. Champion says that one of the occasions when he came closest to death was a snowy day, many years ago, just after he had bought a new Range Rover. "Everyone around me was slipping, and I was thinking, Yeahhh. And I came to a stop sign on a major road, and I was driving probably twice as fast as I should have been, because I could. I had traction. But I also weighed probably twice as much as most cars. And I still had only four brakes and four tires on the road. I slid right across a four-lane road. " Four-wheel drive robs the driver of feedback. "The car driver whose wheels spin once or twice while backing out of the driveway knows that the road is slippery," Bradsher writes. "The SUV driver who navigates the driveway and street without difficulty until she tries to brake may not find out that the road is slippery until it is too late. " Jettas are safe because they make their drivers feel unsafe. S.U.V.s are unsafe because they make their drivers feel safe. That feeling of safety isn't the solution; it's the problem. |
|
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Using your definition for "every society should respect human rights" (i.e let them drive larger cars than they need), all OECD countries already do, so what the hell are you on about? |
You just called me retarded for saying all countries should respect very basic human rights which I outlined. 17sss clearly has a right to own an F-150 truck. He has that right. The government can make it difficult to own one. It can come up with fees to discourage the ownership of such a vehicle. Charge a carbon tax or something. But if liberty is to be respected, the government cannot simply outlaw the owning of a street legal pick up truck. |
|
|
| elFreak |
so passing a constitutionally sound bill against large vehicles would be unconstitutional?
drinking makes people happy, but your constitution had no problem with prohibition.
get out of here. |
|
|
|
|
