If self-esteem was rampant, there would be no problem. Please try to use better English. It is and will remain impossible to understand what you mean if you do not strive for a higher level of correctness in what you type.

The fact that US Marines are dying because enemy combatants are being funded in part by our foreign oil consumption is evidence enough for the federal government to dictate what vehicles people can buy, as regardless of who produces the oil we use, the oil other people use will be dictated by the remaining supply and their order of precedence for buying oil from the world market. If rogue nations like Iran were unable to sell their oil, this would not be an issue, but unfortunately, that is not true.

I agree with your first paragraph, but I find certain elements of your second paragraph (one, the necessity of curbing carbon dioxide emissions and two, the idea that convincing the federal government of this is the only way to get it to pass vehicle sale restrictions) to be flawed, as consequences of the many-body problem and the enemy combatants that wish to kill us anywhere in the world, regardless of what we do. Unless you can solve the many body problem, the solution to the many body problem demonstrates that the hypothesizes linking carbon dioxide to doomsday are correct and that you can convince the terrorists to stop trying to kill us and learn to love us, convincing the federal government to declare carbon dioxide to be a problem and convincing the federal government to outlaw the sales of certain types of new vehicles as a result of that is not necessary to convince the federal government to legislate what vehicles people can buy.

However, given the amount of friction that individuals who buy the vehicles that would be banned would generate if such a proposal was made (as forces exist in pairs according to Newton's third law of motion), it would be much easier to convince these people that these vehicles do not make them more important than it would be to legislate what vehicles people can buy and who can buy them.

It’s not good to judge or discount others intelligence based on the car they drive.

I have a big Suburban I drive occasionally about once a week while camping, towing the boat, trips to Home Depot, driving my Mastiff to the Vet. The “environmental damage” I have caused by continuing to drive a 15-17 MPG vehicle is still less then the environmental impact of manufacturing a new large hybrid SUV I would need to replace it with ($47,000 Tahoe Hybrid-6,000 pound towing capacity). I would then be responsible for “wasting” thousands of pounds of steel, glass, plastic, iron, aluminum, copper, and the toxic byproducts associated with processing lead/acid and nimhi batteries, etc... The damage to the environment was done 10 years ago; it doesn’t make sense to do it all over again to just save few MPGs!

Some of those big pickup drivers you mention I’m sure would also doubt someone’s sexual orientation based on the “cute” hybrid someone else might drive. “Aren’t all hybrid owners bleeding heart, baby-killing liberals anyway?”

Making fun of someone that drives a large vehicle is just as fun as making fun of someone that bought a Prius and wasted the $8,000 they could have saved by just buying a Corrola and driving the speed limit .

No one here is discounting anyone's intelligence or making fun of them, unless some of the comments in this thread directed towards me count.

In addition, no one on this site to my knowledge has actually advocated keeping the same cars year after year. I have read nothing but suggestions that people must be forced to buy new cars. Regardless of what happens, people are going to buy new cars (most people anyway) without any coercion (as the average life of a car is 12 years in the United States and people have gotten into a replacement mentality). Perhaps people's new car purchases could consider their actual needs rather than what some of them think they lack. My hypothesis is that people who want others to purchase more efficient vehicles could achieve their goals without encountering as much friction by addressing this.

Resorting to charges of poor grammar and typing errors? I want to explore your idea to convert the majority of truck owners through self-esteem boosting by psychologists. That is your idea right? Or don't you want to discuss your idea anymore.

The correctness of your following run-on sentence makes your above statement seem rather petty.

If the US uses only the Army, Navy, and Air Force will the government lose the "evidence" to dictate vehicle purchase.

Are you saying it doesn't matter where US companies get oil and gasoline, because somewhere some enemy combatants got money from oil sales therefore the government has "evidence" to dictate? Bush would love those rules, I'd rather he not have that power.

Snowdog650 correctly saw dictation by government in your first post, thanks for clearing any doubts. You can say you'd prefer "convincing" but unless your level of correctness was low and you didn't mean it, your bold statement above says government dictating is already justified.

Newton's physical laws don't apply to human thought.

It is condescending to assume that the majority of SUV and Pick-up truck drivers only own them because of low self-esteem. Talk about bringing the "friction", indeed some psychology might help you with your approach.

Worthywads, for further discussion of this, please private message me. I would like to keep this thread on topic and the contentious nature of your post suggests that further dialogue between us in this thread on the topic of the English language is not facilitative towards that.

Any American, enlisted or not, dying anywhere in the world because enemy combatants are being funded by oil dollars obligates the federal government to take measures to reduce US oil consumption, even if it means specifying what vehicles either people may legally buy or businesses may legally sell, either through some sort of fuel economy criteria or an explicit list.

I never said that the federal government should dictate things. I only said that it already can in response to the suggestion that it would become possible if the federal government declared carbon dioxide to be a problem. Attempting to treat people's (and perhaps your own given your disproportionate response to this suggestion) lack of self-esteem to lower the United States' dependence on oil (either foreign oil or oil period) has nothing to do with government mandates and consequently, there is little that the federal government could do to solve the problem. It is not like the federal government could mandate that everyone have self-esteem, as such an action would be unconstitutional, unenforceable and unrealizable.

Yeah you did, what does this mean?

or this

Not dictating?, would you say obligating? If you're saying they already can, but you disagree with that you are being very unclear.

I can't see how the rest the of your last post pertained at all to anything I've said within this thread. I felt free to include other things you've said within this thread. I simply agree with snowdog650's perception of your statements.

Back to the initial topic.

Your premise may be completely wrong given your evidence which is:

Speculation on your part, and condescending. Your strongest evidence is "It's long been said...", and "It seems to follow...".

Short in stature? Politically correct stereotyping.

Your solution

You appear to be ready to enroll in psychology school on a hunch, and a vague idea.

Diversion to the English language is your deal, not mine, why would I pm you? You've already made your insult publicly.

Yikes. I guess the comments regarding people getting over themselves were pretty much on point. My suggestion was intended to point out the data not our impressions of it. Pick your source but pretty much any published peer reviewed scholarly article has summed up that upon our present course much of the world's population will die. Histrionics aside, if understanding that perspective isn't enough, we are dead already.
I would suggest that if you want to influence others, learn as much as you can about the science then learn how to communicate the science so others will listen.

Just curious, who is more qualified to determine what the actually needs of the person purchasing the car are? The actual person purchasing the car or someone driving past that person on the freeway for fleet moment?

Let's all take a deep breath and relax people...

First 4WD Hypermiler

Have you read the FEH FAQ?

Live in Michigan? Let it be known in Michigan Roll Call

Read My Automotive Blog at Rich Rambles

Yikes...I'm definitely dense...cuz I read this whole thead and got even more confused than after the one that started it.