Hummer owner gets angry message

Beats driving big obnoxious vehicles to get your message out there.

Violence better than Hummer.

Great set of values you have there.

Don't you think "violence" is a bit of an exaggeration?

"Vandals batter D.C. man's SUV, slash its tires and scratch in an eco note"

They're practically terrorists!

:eyes:

Bornagin: always good for a little comedic relief. Thanks! :rofl:

I'm mocking your exaggeration.

:shrug:

Well played, sir!

not that I particularly want to continue down this tangent, but weren't you the one that started this "I know you are but what am I?" routine?

so many years ago that dumped the tea into the Boston harbor "battered" "Slashed" "Scratched" the cargo boxes. Those disrespectful thugs.

None at all.

Wow, just wow...

Noun: hooligan hoolugun
An uncultured, aggressive, rude, noisy troublemaker
- bully, tough, ruffian, roughneck, rowdy, yob , yobo , yobbo

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/HOOLIGAN

you almost have to end with an accusation which, although very likely warranted, is against DU rules.

:hi:

you'll find song lyrics.

:shrug:

His "shock value" is no longer a shock anymore. Just schtick.

Vandalism gets better gas mileage.

:shrug:

That's a violent crime!

:rofl:

A guy bought a car, a car I wouldn't purchase on a bet. But someone didn't just vandalize it, they damn near destroyed it. Every tire punctured, every window broken, every quarter panel dented or keyed. If you're cool with that, have the guts to say so, and we'll just agree to disagree.

I'm just not going to pretend to care.

Some asshole bought a hummer, some other guy vandalized it. Big fucking deal. The media's all over it? What's next, some kid wouldn't stay off a guys lawn? News at 11?

I also wanted to say how sorry I am for Mr. Groves' penis.

it's your world. Call Websters with your new definition.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm a gun owner and have ridden many a motorcycle. NEXT!

people's property.

How convenient for them to forget that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I'm surprised by the amount of support for these assholes. Cowards vandalize a working person's property in the middle of the night. I hope they are held accountable.

But They Turn Out Not To Be Radical Extremists?

If they weren't, they wouldn't have taken such extreme action. I hope they are found asap and locked up where they belong.

or is you SUV -Walmart shopping still bugging you?

It was vandalism which is wrong but it was a fucking ugly choice to choose
unless you had a garage to hide it.

And it's your government too, by the way.

And no, I'm not bothered by my SUV or my Walmart purchases, though it appears you and a few children here can't get over your irrational obsession about it. Cracks me up every time I see that mindless pathetic retort as if it has any bearing on any discussion somehow. So childish, really. :hi:

(stop it!)

the article says he lives with his mother. Although he may be paying her rent or taking care of her medically, so I won't judge.

...the "Decent" line.

I hate the damn things also but would not damage somebody's hard earned money...
It's rather like stealing.

He's 32 and still living at home, probably in the basement on his computer all day lurking in DU and heaping praise on Bush at the freeper site. Skin head, buddy from Alabama. Spare me. Anyway, he couldn't have paid for it all at once and it was insured no doubt.

He's more than likely just some grown-up kid with his first real job and real money who wants to mack on the ladies and cruise the avenue while blasting Jay-Z or Ludacris. The problems of the world probably rarely enter his head as he blows up his buddies' cell phone to go hit up the club and have a few beers and pick up some "foine-ass" women.

Freepers actually only dream of having a red cent to pay for such luxury, as they toss month old fast food wrappers off the passengers' seat of their 1983 Chrysler LeBaron.

Your imagined freeper reality is much like my real liberal reality. Except it's an '89 Plymouth Sundance. :cry:

or not. The article says he was starting a business.

1. Pralle, Sarah. "I'm Changing the Climate! Ask Me How!: The Politics of the Anti-SUV Campaign" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, 2004-09-02 Online <.PDF>. 2007-07-18

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Abstract: This paper examines the politics of the nascent grassroots campaign against Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and their drivers. The anti-SUV campaign is another example of the politicization of private citizen behavior, a topic recently reviewed by Kersh and Morone (2002) in their analysis of the politics of obesity. The anti-SUV campaign shares some elements with the public health campaigns investigated by Kersh and Morone and with other moral reform movements. Like these other efforts, the anti-SUV campaign stigmatizes putatively private behavior using explicit and implicit moral appeals, it seeks to govern the self and others, and it demonizes both individuals and corporations. But it does not fit the typical mold of earlier crusades in two key ways. First, the anti-SUV campaign reverses the class, and to some extent the racial politics that underlies other efforts to control private behavior. Second, the SUV backlash relies to a great extent on humor and a sense of play, rather than the politics of fear.

I argue that while the movement has progressive roots, its critique is ultimately too limited in scope to have a significant policy impact. The limitations of the campaign stem from tensions in American political culture that the anti-SUV campaign confronts, the most significant of which is America’s ambivalence toward consumption. While institutional constraints, mobilization biases, and a lack of political leadership also pose challenges to policy reform, this paper focuses on the cultural and ideological challenges posed by America’s attitudes toward consumption.

More:
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p99211_index.html?type=info



Also:



Robert Lind is taking on the fight against SUV's with a bumper sticker campaign. Robert advocates tagging SUV's with his bumper sticker in and effort to change the way people look at SUV's.

He has put his sticker on hundreds of SUV's all over Marin and the Bay Area. He hopes that by this civil disobedience may change a few people attitudes about these gas guzzling vehicles.

He provides a free template on his website so you can print out your own bumper stickers are you can buy them direct for .25 each.

Listen to an NPR interview with Robert http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/watc/20001021.watc.08.ram

http://www.totalbike.com/news/article/36/

This is what comes up instead: Looking into Unsettled Weather from Japan: Various Scenarios about Long-term International Political Changes and Fair Share of Long-term Climate Change. Do you still have the original?

greatly appreciated.

oh, that's right, I was number one on your block list, as I recall.

Good times, good times.

category. It sucks this happened to him though.

:eyes:

:shrug:

and fill it with gas.

No, better that a bunch of kids who can't afford $38,000 vehicles
should go die to secure oil for this shithead to WASTE.

Fuck him, and the Hummer he rode in on.

You know what? If you condone vandalism, criminal activity, and destruction of private property as valid means of protest, then it works both ways. I assume you would have the same "fuck him" reaction if someone's prius was destroyed by a RW'er? Or if someone trashed a Dem candidates' campaign office? Or if a theater showing Sicko was vandalized? Of course you wouldn't! Simply because you agree with the policies of the vandal does NOT condone the vandalism.

:shrug:

Who knows?

How many times have I read a story like this, only to find out later the 'victim' committed the crime (insurance, rant against liberals, whatever)? I mean, this sounds like it was written for snopes.

I would like to see the followup story after the insurance investigation.

If it happened the way he said, fine - it is vandalism, and he has his rights. I am sure the police will be more than happy to smoke out the dirty hippies that are responsible.

B.

...

BTW, what a fucking Guido that guy is.

His "Dream Car".... :eyes: puh-leeze!

Especially since the alleged victim understands a thing or two about media stunts/promotion.

hmmmm.

I would rather the vandals have just left a nasty note on his windshield.

What's that, set off the lunatics to start vandalizing?

The key word is unnecessary. SUVs and trucks have a purpose.

The only purpose of a Hummer is to compensate for something you don't have.

"What's that, set off the lunatics to start vandalizing?"

Nice straw man. :eyes:

I'm not condoning the vandalism - a fact that I already made perfectly clear - but I'm not shedding any tears because John Q. Skinhead lost his status symbol.

Should those be vandalised as well?

Don't you think all of us do "unnecessary" things that harm the environment? Air conditioning? Light bulbs? on and on...

"Should those be vandalised as well?"

Can you read? I said NO. Do you need me to hit you over the head and spell it out for you?

"Don't you think all of us do "unnecessary" things that harm the environment? Air conditioning? Light bulbs? on and on..."

All of those things serve a purpose. Hummers do not.

If you can't debate my actual words, you probably shouldn't debate me at all.

They are different.

If you are unable to figure out the words you actually mean, you probably shouldn't pretend at superiority.

And Hummers still fail your little test.

"If you are unable to figure out the words you actually mean, you probably shouldn't pretend at superiority."

Maybe you should quit trying to be wise when your wisdom is clearly lacking.

In many climates, it's real stretch to say air conditioning is "necessary".

Same for most other things - we could easily live with smaller houses, fewer cars, etc.

You're just rationalizing your willingness to accept crime when it happens to people you disagree with.

I never condoned or supported their actions.

I'm just not weeping for a fucking Hummer driver.

"You're just rationalizing your willingness to accept crime when it happens to people you disagree with."

You created a straw man argument just so you can have someone to fight. You aren't happy that I agree that their actions were wrong, oh no, you had to go pointing out insignificant differences and twisting my words.

I have no tolerance for people who argue dishonestly. Good riddance.

You've justified it, to yourself anyway, and it's pathetic.

I didn't weep for Saddam when he was hanged, but I didn't like the idea of hanging him.

"You've justified it, to yourself anyway, and it's pathetic."

You have twisted my words, pretended to read my mind, created straw men and blatantly lied about my beliefs regarding this issue, just to pick a fight.

Such behavior I would expect from a 5 year old.

has a FUNCTION then you argue that basically everything but a hummer has a PURPOSE.

How sad that you have a good and decent man as your avatar.

"You can't even decide what your "argument" is - you jump from what is NECESSARRY to what has a FUNCTION then you argue that basically everything but a hummer has a PURPOSE."

So I have to like Hummer drivers? That shit won't fly with me. I don't have to approve of the vandalism to not like the fact that he bought a Hummer in the first place.

If you are still really, really confused, I'll spell it out for you, since it's apparently so difficult.

My opinions

-Buying a Hummer: WRONG

-Vandalizing a Hummer: WRONG

You act like I have to approve of one to disapprove of the other, which is an affront to logic and common sense.

Get up off your high horse, quit being dishonest, and think about what I am saying.

"How sad that you have a good and decent man as your avatar."

How sad that you will repeat your own lies and use disgusting right-wing tactics to debate while having the Statue of Liberty as your avatar.

rather than literal weeping.

Is it ok if I vandalize anyone's car if I notice them driving to places that they could walk or bike to?

I hope not.

Not want. Need.

People need cars to get from point A to point B. Even some SUV and truck drivers need them for off-roading or winter conditions.

There is no reason why any civilian would need a Hummer. None.

It is a symbol of conspicuous consumption, a form of compensation for men, and serves no worthwhile purpose.

"Is it ok if I vandalize anyone's car if I notice them driving to places that they could walk or bike to?

I hope not."

If you read my post (which I assume you did, since you responded to it), you would already know the answer, because I said it quite clearly in my last post.

Since it appears your reading comprehension skills might not be so hot, here it is again:

"I would rather the vandals have just left a nasty note on his windshield."

Does that answer your question?

We own food. We need it to survive.

We own houses. We need them for shelter.

We own clothes. We need them to keep ourselves warm and protect our junk.

Do you really want me to go on? I think I've pointed out how silly your argument is. :eyes:

I see people taking plenty of trips in cars that they don't need to take. Forty percent of all car trips are less than two miles. My grocery store is surrounded by folks that live within a couple miles. The parking lot is generally full, there are no bike racks. Most of the folks don't need to drive there. They just do it because it's convenient.

Should everyone who doesn't live up to my personal standards of what's "right" be treated like an asshole by me or should we all just try to be nice and get along?

"I see people taking plenty of trips in cars that they don't need to take."

Good for you. Their cars serve other purposes, however, and how do you know they don't have legitimate uses for it? You don't.

The Hummer has no legitimate use, not even "point A to point B" uses. There are far cheaper and less environmentally hazardous vehicles out there. A Hummer is a deliberate choice of conspicuous consumption and a big middle finger to Mother Nature.

"Forty percent of all car trips are less than two miles. My grocery store is surrounded by folks that live within a couple miles. The parking lot is generally full, there are no bike racks. Most of the folks don't need to drive there. They just do it because it's convenient."

Great. Again, their vehicles have other legitimate uses, and just because they aren't using their vehicle in the way you would like doesn't mean they aren't using it for more worthwhile purposes when you aren't looking.

"Should everyone who doesn't live up to my personal standards of what's "right" be treated like an asshole by me or should we all just try to be nice and get along?""

If someone purchases an unnecessary, gas-guzzling monstrosity of a vehicle which serves no legitimate purpose except as a status symbol, a compensation device and a big "fuck you" to the earth, why should I "just try to be nice and get along" with them?

BTW, I do not consider leaving a note on someone's windshield (which I feel would have been more appropriate) to be treating them "like an asshole".

I didn't know DUers would go so far to make excuses for somebody who shows such callous disregard for the environment.

self indulgent WANTS?

don't be surprised if people who care about this planet have a bone to pick with you.

I don't care if he wants to drive a Hummer. But I also don't care if his polluting behemoth of a self indulgent want is vandalized.

I don't have to go around vandalizing Hummers to know that civilians who buy them are usually self indulgent jerks themselves.

If it is not illegal, it means you don't have buy in.

Your rationalization of a crime is no better than the right not caring if Planned Parenthood or gay organizations are vandalized.

"Your rationalization of a crime is no better than the right not caring if Planned Parenthood or gay organizations are vandalized."

Your dishonesty and meaningless rhetoric is equaled only by your utter lack of an ability to read my posts and logically comprehend what I am saying.

Good night and good riddance.

pleasing in some way to its owner.

What a sorry excuse you've come up with for justifying criminal vandalizing.

Now will you stop with your blatant lying and face that fact?

...Some straw to make a hut, some animal skins for clothes, some seeds to grow a garden, and a source of fresh water. :P

There is no good reason for a civilian to buy a Hummer. Period.

Apparently that concept is way too difficult for some DUers. :eyes:

society people can even buy things they don't NEED. You know - like air conditioners, second cars, art, television.

If you want to push for legislatin to prohibit hummers for civilian use, go ahead - I think there's a case to be made.

Yeah - let's get people to change by vandalizing their property.

:eyes:

his response was GFY.

If any neighbors "speak to me" about my car, I'd tell them to fuck off. I drive what I drive, and don't really care whether my neighbors approve or not.

to such an act.

BTW - ".......I drive what I drive, and don't really care whether my neighbors approve or not....." - guess you don't give a damn about the future of the planet either, huh?

Were you born like this, or did it require special lessons?

I often wonder how any moron could be so brazen.

Fucktards.

Supply and demand.. And he demands about 4 times more gas per mile than the average motorist. Asshole.

Think of the resources that will be used up making replacement parts; the pollution from the painting; all the energy that gets wasted in all of the above; all the basically fruitless labor of all the people involved in documenting the incident and performing repairs.

Texas has the right idea on vandals - At night you can shoot them on sight.

"Texas has the right idea on vandals - At night you can shoot them on sight."

Because property is so much more important these days than everything else...

Not tit-for-tat really. Make the price of fucking with peoples' stuff so high that only the most worthless, expendable people will be dumb enough to do it.

how's that workin out?

Do you have any evidence that it isn't a deterrant?

BTW I oppose the DP. I've said so numerous times and consistently on DU.

For producing more Hurricanes, stronger Hurricanes, more tornados, more forest fires, more floods.

just puncture the tires
:evilgrin:

NOT that I say anybody should ever do that, of course.

It just pops into my mind when I see a Hummer.

then I squint my eyes and see it
with the tires flat, and it just seems right somehow.

"Sorry about your tiny penis!"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:D

everyone here is so obsessed with penises (peni?) :shrug: I can't believe it hasn't turned into a sex thread yet.....

I can't wait until the new 2008 Buick Rimjob comes out.

He's a small man, physically. Smaller than me, and I'm not all that big of a guy.

In my case, the "compensation" angle is very likely 100% true. Of course, I could be wrong, but he's not my type, so I'll pass on checking my assertion for proof :D

.... but vandalism is not ok. Sorry.

I can't believe these thugs were really enviromentalists cause this kind of action only hurts anyone who really cares about the environment. :-(

They killed a whole lot of trees for the lumber used to replace what they destroyed, and accomplished nothing positive.

familiarize yourself with the concept of insurance fraud.

I also don't recall him being a part of any group either.

Sounds real good though, don't it?

The MSM needs to be covering the damage that these megaconsumers are doing to our planet. That it takes a crime to even get their attention is nearly a crime itself.

Terrorism is the necessary result when a people are threatened by a larger more powerful group. If they are left with no means of addressing the problems they are faced with in an effective matter they will in the course of events take matters into their own hands. The rules of common decency will go out the window and they will do what they need to change the path being taken by the larger entity.

This is true for any group. The Haves have a habit of running over other people using the systems and values they themselves promote and enforce. And when people get caught up by this system and see their lives in peril they will act against it. The Haves will claim they are playing by the rules. But they are rules they established and they are rules that they twist to better their own position at the cost of others. Others who will eventually stand up against such tyranny.

This very nation was founded on this very cause. When we struck back against England at first we did not have a sufficient standing army to carry the day. So we struck at economic interests instead. We did so until the issue grew to the point where people had to decide where they stood. And then they enlisted.

Even then once in conflict we did not fight the war in their manner. We hid and fired from cover. This was not how warfare was fought back then. It was considered underhanded and cowardly. But it worked and we needed to use whatever worked in order to win our freedom from tyranny.

Bashing a megaSUV is not right. But then dying because some inconsiderate jerk decided that they needed to drive a planet choking monstrosity isn't right either. But it is legal. Legal doesn't mean a thing if your planet is dead.

I smell a false-flag operation. Has the area been combed for Porta-Pottys?

vandalism is never the answer.

besides- i have no problem with people choosing to drive any legal vehicle that they can afford- it's their money.

If someone works hard enough or is productive enough to afford it, let him or her pay fair market price.

if market conservation was so good why should the government mandate mpg at all? Face it the market is either wrong much of the time or too slow and reactionary. Human nature doesn't fail to disappoint again and again.


I am all for rich people wasting their cash on things that don't affect me personally like aged wines or fine art. By virtue of sharing the same demand for an apparent necessary fuel and common transportation infrastructure we are linked.

until that time people have a right, and are free to drive whatever car they choose and can afford.

there are plenty of new & older cars on the road that get worse mileage than a hummer.

It's just wrong to damage someone's property b/c you don't think it's right. They could have left a note on the windshield.

outraged instead of considering a justifiable expression of disagreement.

:shrug:

contribute to a climate in which others do as well.

It's selfish, anti-social behavior.

I just said it's not as bad as owning a hummer.

:shrug:

hummer is have to do with anything.

If it's not okay, it's not okay.

Man. I can't believe this story. Some asshole has a hummer? Terrible.

That's plain despicable.

The way I see it, if this guy wants to drive a Hummer, that's his business. I don't feel that I'm high and mighty myself that I have to tell others how to live their lives or tell them what to drive. What he rolls around in is nobody's business but his. Same with someone who owns a gas guzzling classic car. And if I owned one of those (say a Hemi muscle car), there would be hell to pay if someone even put a finger on it.

I've driven Hummers before (never owned one). I don't much care for them since they're too truck-like, but to each their own. I'm not into throwing all that gas into the tank either.

As for the vandalism, this is on the same level as fundies trashing a Planned Parenthood. Anyone who advocates destroying someone else's property because of their own self-righteousness is a pathetic life form.

Is screw with mans car. Vandalism sucks.

to tote prospective buyers around. No way will I ever use them.

...on why, in this day and age, buying a Hummer is not a good idea. Perhaps if it were explained that wasting the Earth's natural resources is a bad idea since we are now on the precipice of peak oil and that we all should be trying to conserve energy by buying and driving smaller cars and hybrids. Perhaps, then, he'd come to understand why owning and driving a Hummer is not the way to go...

Ya think?

Yeah I'm not a big fan of Hummers but anyone who does that to a car is a huge douchebag.

The network TV version of that film is even better than the original in some ways :)

what a whimp!

He must have really small...feet.

:shrug:

This simply REEKS of a staged attack, right down to the Arkansas buddy:

"I'd say one in five people who come by have that 'you-got-what-you-deserve' look," said his friend Andy Sexton, 27, who is visiting from Arkansas and has been helping Groves deal with fallout from the crime.

I'm just smelling an opportunistic lib/Al Gore bashing. THe scrawled message isn't even grammatically correct unless they ran out of letters. ENVIRON is a transitive verb that means "to surround"; "Environs" means surroundings, which would make more sense if that's what they meant. Somehow I don't think educated "hippie vandals" are thinking of more obscure meanings of the word "environment". How would they have enough time to scrawl thirteen letters after smashing glass, gashing hoods and slashing tires? Nobody noticed or heard this attack on a street? The window smashing should have woke someone up. Did he have an alarm? Vandals usually hit it and quit it, not take time to make a statement.

that a porsche 911 turbo, Dodge Ram Pickup 1500 SRT-10, Mercedes-Benz G Class, Land Rover Range Rover, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Ford Econoline Wagon, GMC Savana Lexus LX 470, Cadillac Escalade, Toyota Land Cruiser and Dodge Ram Pickup 15 all get lower gas mileage or the same as a Hummer. There are many others as well. So what is it about a Hummer that causes it to be the poster child for destroying the environment? Much is said about the psychological reason for driving one. What is the psychological reason it inspires so much hatred and anger? Personally I don't like the vehicle. I think its ugly and looks ungainly. But it doesn't really inspire any vitriol in me.

It's a GMC Jimmy with extra body panels.

plus it's not a sleek, pleasant looking thing like a sports car which might get just as bad gas mileage. It's big and boxy.

that I sometimes find myself resenting. People need to stop relying on the physical structure of their vehicle to protect them in the wreck that their bad driving will inevitably cause. More agile cars and better drivers is what I would like to see.

I mildly brought it up earlier with classic muscle cars (like the old HEMIs). Add to that list virtually any of those European exotic sports cars (Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, etc.) or luxury cars (Rolls, Bentley, Maserati) with those massive V12 engines. Those things get way worse mileage than a Hummer does!

i.e. even other off-roaders despise Hummer drivers.

Between that, its poor gas mileage, and its over-the-top size, I think its easy to see why this vehicle has made enemies.

(I rated as an Eco-Avenger Democrat in that quiz that's been going around, so I can say this!)

The ends do not justify the means and all that...

Something is either ethical or not ethical, personal beliefs doesn't change that.

personal conscience?

Nice. :eyes:

2 wrongs do not make a right. Vandalism is wrong no matter what is being vandalized. The ends do not justify the means, you should not use immoral means towards a moral end.

Go vandals!!!

My car has been vandalized, didn't make the damn news..

There is NO reasonable justification for this BS, NONE.

I hope these malcontents get the time in the slammer thet deserve.

from time to time, but usually only when their fat-ass car takes up two parking spaces.

Some of the gung-ho Hummer lovers here might jump down your throat for doing that.

the sharpie...

"Boo-hoo" is my way of commenting on the waste of time and energy provoked by this story. "Boo-hoo" is about all this news is worth. What editor would decide to run this story? Either one who wants to stir it up, or one who wants to demonize those in the population who take a stand against gas-guzzling cars.

is to put that penis on display for the world to see
parked on the street for to get this abuse.

Just a thought...

Seems to dovetail conveniently with Glenn's "You liberals want to execute us GW skeptics" message...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1327364

because that upsets me more than his choice of car.

I have known many folks who live at home so they can afford all the luxury items but they don't help financially with household expenses.

If it's cool with him and his mother I don't know why it upsets anyone else.

Would it be better if he had a separate home? Doesn't that just increase the use of resources by the same two people?

in fact I have no problem with him living with his mom as a resource reduction issue..

However...I have known too many folks who live at home with their parents and they do nothing to help out...there are a few of these folks in my neighborhood and meanwhile their 70+ year old parents are out there mowing lawns or paying for lawn services and junior is driving a BMW or better and is bitching and moaning about how they are being "taxed to death"...

One older lady in particular was really worried about her healthcare premium going up and I said.."well charge XX more rent.."...and the reply was..."oh I don't charge him...that wouldn't be fair...I don't want to be a drain on him"

Jesus...buys luxury cars yet can't help out...

...now that may not be this fellow's situation...but this is one of my pet peeves...

dissonance in many cases. It's a very "white" thing, if you will, to expect people to be independent. In some mediterranean, latin and asian cultures there's a different value on family interdependence.

I know if my Sicilian grandmother could have kept every child under her roof until the day she died, she would have done so gladly.

with five sisters...while they lived there they had to contribute their paychecks to the family food/shelter fund.

Four sisters went on to marry...one was married/widowed (WWII) and she then went back home and basically financially supported the family.

In my mother's family Northern European...they had to hand over their entire paycheck until they reached 21 and then...they had to start giving half...

No one lived at home for free...and living extravagantly was an indication that you weren't contributing much...and were then considered a freeloader...

The family in question must be okay with it, at least enough to sustain it.

before some selective people will post on here saying vandalizing a SUV isn't good enough. :sarcasm: "Hell, might as well pop a cap in the fucker who owns it" :sarcasm:

How ridiculous!

... while driving around. Or I'll turn and yell 'asshole' at them if I'm stopped next to them at a light. They should be routinely harassed for driving up the price of gas for the rest of us. What they represent is the opposite of sustainability, and they seem to revel in that. Owning one of those things is just selfish.

The article said that a lot of the people in the neighborhood (American University Park in Washington, DC) gave the Hummer owner looks that said "You got what you deserved".

I happen to know American University Park, and I know that there are lots of very nice lawns in that neighborhood.

And all those lawns are fertilized and watered.

The lawns are NOT environmentally friendly.

Someone should put a message on the lawns, too.

You can either defend both side or neither - unless there is a bias...

Sorry

But if any of you want to join hands around the dead Hummer and offer up a round of Kumbaya, be my guest. I'll have a pretty good laugh at that as well.

Can I trash it if mine gets better mileage?

I understand the points made against owning this vehicle but I would never condone vandalism to make a point in any way. Also, what idiot would leave his expensive car parked on a street for 5 days?

These vandals are nothing more than classless people who deserve a good prison sentence.