The Detroit Project

Comments

• Reply 1 of 14

  scott Posts: 7,431member

  January 10, 2003 4:47PM

  SUVs and National Security? That's the stupidest ****ing thing I've read in a long time.
  
  
  
  BTW drugs do fund terror. Did everyone forget about the poppy fields in Afghanistan? You think all those drugs from south/central america to fund public works projects.
  
  
  
  
  
  Naw! We just want to smoke dope and not care!
• Reply 2 of 14

  chweave1 Posts: 164member

  January 10, 2003 5:32PM

  It's an absurd notion to believe that buying an SUV supports terrorism. By that analysis, buying anything that is made from/uses petroleum supports terrorism. So guess what? The entire way of western life supports terrorism. There are so many products that are directly related to petroleum and so many that are indirectly linked to petroleum. To say that because someone drives an SUV that has worse gas mileage than a sedan or compact car, but better mileage than a truck or 18 wheeler that they support terrorism doesn't make much sense when you look at the big picture. You could take that argument and say that just by being alive in the US you are funding terrorism.
  
  
  
  This whole "use terrorism to deter drug use/SUV's" is inflamatory and uses people's emotions more than using facts.
  
  
  
  I would rather see a campaign linking lower fuel efficiency to global warming, or a campaign simply showing people the enormous amount of money they could have saved if they had a more fuel efficient car. Besides... What is going to get people to change their habits? Showing them that their money may or may not have helped terrorism, or by showing how much money they could have saved if they hadn't had to buy so much gasoline for their wonderful SUV?
• Reply 3 of 14

  airsluf Posts: 1,861member

  January 10, 2003 6:07PM
• Reply 4 of 14

  thuh freak Posts: 2,664member

  January 10, 2003 7:55PM

  [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
  
  <strong>Drugs -&gt; crime & terrorism support == FACT.
  
  
  
  SUV -&gt; terrorism support == a mental result of using aforementioned drugs, mainly crack.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Drugs relating directly to crime & terrorism support is not as clean cut as that. First of all, lumping all drugs together is like saying all anything does something; all blacks are criminals, all micks are drunks, all jews are cheap, ... its inflammatory. My drug [marijuana] use does not in any way support terrorism. My dealer gets it from the guy who harvests it. Each link along that chain is an upstanding citizen. I have not, nor has my dealer, or his source[s], committed any crimes while under the influence of our drug[s]. The money we spend on drugs goes back into the harvest, or as a little profit for the different links. They don't spend their profit on funding evil, or criminal activities [with the exception of the growth]. Also, the most popular drug in America, by far and overwhelming majority, is marijuana. Most American weed is locally grown, or imported from nearby states/countries (Canada, Mexico).
  
  
  
  It's a fact, though, that the majority of oil we buy in America comes from the mideast. And, many of the companies we buy from are our enemies in politial situations, and some of them have committed acts against America. It's a bit separated, the money and the terrorist act[s], but a link does exist.
• Reply 5 of 14

  sdw2001 Posts: 18,026member

  January 10, 2003 8:39PM

  Paul and freak:
  
  
  
  SUV's do not support terror. Drugs often do. End of story.
  
  
  
  Oh, and on that link about "buy nothing' day: It's just one more impractical wack leftist idea.
  
  
  
  "I'm such a rebel dude.....like, the world is SO materialistic and shit....people should like smoke up and work for like humanity and shit. We shouldn't like support our consumer-driven power base man".
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Reply 6 of 14

  thuh freak Posts: 2,664member

  January 10, 2003 8:48PM

  [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
  
  <strong>Paul and freak:
  
  
  
  SUV's do not support terror. Drugs often do. End of story.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  i'm glad i read this thread so i could be enlightened by you. thank you.
  
  
  
  i think the suv-&gt;terror argument is pretty weak; but the drug-&gt;terror is definitely, in my mind, deficient. i am not a terrorist, and do not support terrorism [except emotional support for micks in Erin], but i still buy and use [il]legal drugs.
• Reply 7 of 14

  scott Posts: 7,431member

  January 11, 2003 4:07AM

  This is just another example of idiots taking advantage of the death of 3000 people to push their own issues.
• Reply 8 of 14

  paul Posts: 5,278member

  January 11, 2003 11:20PM

  you can argue that the anti-drug ads are the same thing
• Reply 9 of 14

  bunge Posts: 7,329member

  January 13, 2003 10:19AM

  This ad campaign is a good idea. Even if it's a stretch, it's not any bigger of a stretch than the anti-drug campaign. At the very least it's good to get people thinking about the effects of their actions, if that's doing drugs or driving an SUV.
• Reply 10 of 14

  airsluf Posts: 1,861member

  January 13, 2003 1:22PM
• Reply 11 of 14

  thuh freak Posts: 2,664member

  January 13, 2003 1:37PM

  [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
  
  <strong>I would beg to differ with upstanding citizen. And unless you are personally involved in the supply chain at both ends I wouldn't believe your supplier. Too many machettes and garrottes kinda keep the story in line at the other end. That's terrorism too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  my supplier is a very close friend of mine, and i have met the man/woman (i dont really feel like divulging his/her sex) who grows the stuff i use. i dont really have the time or the guts to become a horticulturist; they can get several years still [dam narcs]. mj is very commonly grown close to home. its a lot cheaper than other drugs, so terror cant really get profit margins up hi enuf to overcome shipping costs. also, mj is like a sedative; while hi on it, people are a lot less inclined to commit crimes/terror.
• Reply 12 of 14

  defiant Posts: 4,876member

  January 13, 2003 1:39PM

  You all know that the drug-fields in Afghanistan belonged to the CIA ?
• Reply 13 of 14

  bunge Posts: 7,329member

  January 13, 2003 3:49PM

  [quote]Originally posted by Defiant:
  
  <strong>You all know that the drug-fields in Afghanistan belonged to the CIA ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  I have heard that the largest single landowner in Afghanistan, outside of Kabul, is Bush Sr., although I don't like to repeat that because I haven't been able to prove or disprove it. I mention it here because it's semi-on topic and if anyone else has proof either way I'd love to see it.
• Reply 14 of 14

  scott Posts: 7,431member

  January 13, 2003 4:25PM

  [quote]Originally posted by Defiant:
  
  <strong>You all know that the drug-fields in Afghanistan belonged to the CIA ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Which is controled by mossad.