Pickups, Hybrids Most Expensive Vehicles to Insure

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I can understand why the hybrid is higher from a repair standpoint. Plug in electrics should be low when they become available.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Another crazy insurance rating, similar to credit scoring. The Chevrolet silverado and the GMC Serria are essential the same vehicle yet one is more expensive to insure that the other.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Of course, SUV drivers should pay more because hybrid costs are higher. Typical self-righteous hybrid owner.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I am not above admitting to watching and enjoying the occasional episode of South Park. (Life is too short, can’t take oneself too seriously.)

There’s a recent episode called “Smug Alert” which has to do with people driving a new Pious hybrid car. Yes… Pious. LOL All their smugness creates this huge cloud of smug pollution that threatens to destroy the town.

It pokes such wonderful fun at the whole environmental panic scene. =)

Yes, we should take care of our planet, but I don’t think brand new hybrid cars are necessarily the ultimate solution. The manufacturing involved creates way more pollution than if you just take good care of an older economy car for a few extra years, or carpooled to work.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I agree. I don’t see why insurance would be so much more costly for Hybrids than it should be for people who drive those SUV’s.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Of course, many don’t understand that conservatives (as a group) are more safe. Credit scores do matter because those people give a crap. The GMC Trucks are built a little tougher, so people who buy them may be thinking a bit more, which can mean a lot when traveling down the road in a 6,000 pound metal monster.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Sunnie, you can tie them (kids) to the roof if you purchase the optional luggage rack.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Just for some perspective about Al Gore…
Maybe youve never heard of a thing called Carbon Credits. I wont bother explaining it, but Al Gore could fly circles around the Earth all day, and if he buys enough carbon credits he could STILL be helping the environment more than he is hurting it.

Just a little education for some of you. Back to work now…

Oh, one more thing, smog is created when you use a vehicle that runs on gas – Smog is not fun to breath, its very unhealthy and will almost kill the olympics this year in China.

As far as a hybrid vehicle being worse for the environment? Thats all about economies of scale. If they made and sold a ton of them, then it would be better for the environment than a gas guzzler.

Can I help you with anything else??

Like or Dislike:

0

0

How did you all get so far off the subject. Let me get you back on track. My insurance is less for my Ford Expedition because when I run the #@%$ over your Prius I only dent my bumper, and you need a replacement car.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I agree that you should buy a car for its intended purpose. People driving huge SUV’s (I’ve owned one)and using them to go to the market or a soccer game is a pretty sad commentary on where people’s heads are. I hope they know that they’re doing a good job of supporting the oil companies, but I doubt it. They just complain about the high cost of fuel. I for one would like to screw the oil companies and the oil producing nations so I’ve had a major change in heart about what I drive (a butt ugly Honda Element @ 26 mpg on the highway). My next car…who knows but I’ll be sure it fits my needs and doesn’t cost me a fortune to fill up. A lot of people need to get real about oil and how much they use. It’s ancient, dirty technology.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Thanks KLS for saying what I was thinking. How many people on this site suggested what type of vehicle we should or should not have. It appears socialism is being drilled into this generation at a tremendous rate of speed.

By the way, I drive diesel. OUCH!

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Don’t forget that there are now Hybrid SUV’s as well. They may not get the mileage of the Prius, but they are a better choice than was available in the past.

For who ever it was suggesting a minivan over an SUV, my SUV gets better mileage than my last minivan did. Also for those of us that live in a part of the country with actual seasons, it is worth the expense to own a 4wd vehicle, even if you never take it off road.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Well, I’ve been an insurance agent for 22 years, drive a Chevy Blazer 4 wheel drive with a little six cylandar. I need my baby-truck to pull my motorcycle trailer, Home Depot stuff, Sams Club, Wal-Mart, yard sales, flee markets, dogs to the vet…………..

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Actually SUV’s contribute more to the smog problem than a car like the Prius. Im sick of trying to educate stupid people like you though – Its getting old.

Do you know what smog is? Do you know why its a problem? Do you know what good health is? How about clean air?

Id say clean air has more to do with freedom than what car you drive.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Don’t confuse Maud with the truth.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Nickoluas, eloquently stated and right on target. I’m impressed. I’m afraid I might have told rude Maud to go …

Like or Dislike:

0

0

If i am wrong, i will accept that.

to some extent haven’t cars already become better for the environment? compared to 20-30 years ago? cars are used with a lighter material thus necessitating less gas (you just stand less of a chance in a head on collission). and don’t they make them now so they emit toxins into the air? aren’t we already heading in the right direction to some extent?

I personally don’t have a problem with SUV’s and trucks…i laugh quite hardily when i see one person riding around in one, but i don’t begrudge them. it’s their choice. i’m only one person so don’t see the point in having one, but who knows, that could change in 10 years.

but i will say this in response to people who keep saying, “how else am i to cart around my kids, my home depot crap, blah blah blah…” you cart it around the same way people did before SUV’s became all the rage….it’s kind of like cell phones…people were able to exist without them….but we’ve grown accustomed to that lifestyle.

but hey, if you can afford it and that’s what you prefer, more power to you! (and I mean that.)

Like or Dislike:

0

0

But I don’t think it’s just the Insurance Journal. I do a lot of work online and I see it everywhere. Maybe it’s an aspect of mob mentality and the fact that people can hide behind electronic anonymity?

Actually… even in my office, some have stooped to a junior high level of behavoir a time or two.

It has long puzzled me why a select few can’t just grow up. But I’ve given up on trying to figure it out.

Best to ignore them.

If you really look around, there are a lot of intelligent points raised and clearly the majority of people here are bright, professional and able to debate a topic without acting like children.

Yeah, we’ve got a couple of bad apples, but so what? If anything, we need them for cheap entertainment. Hee hee!

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Luxury is in the eye of the beholder, or the person who must pay for it. I love people and no one want’s dirty air or water. Pollution in our society is a complex issue and not driven by what kind of car you or I drive. If anything can come from this debate, I hope it is that freedom is something to be cherished and protected. Communist states put people into little boxes to live a life of sameness with few choices to see. Let us not allow our country to become such a state.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

You are so right about the Element being butt ugly. And how they came up with the colors for them God only knows.

I drive a VW Beetle and the cost of insurance and miles per gallon is very good. Cost of fuel however has me very ticked off, now at $3.11 a gallon for regular unleaded where I live. But, I can still drive for a week on $40.00. A pick up or SUV is double that to fill a tank.

As for the electric cars, we had an insured that had one and the thing caught on fire in the garage while it was charging and the house burned to the ground. Million dollar loss to house and obviously a total loss for the car.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Yeah!! Roger Mount.People only see as far as the end of their nose.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Al buys carbon “credits” from exactly who? Several “Carbon Credit” companies have been found to be a total fraud as they did NOTHING to reduce any carbon and just took Al Gore’s money and laughed their way to the Bank.

Wake up Jasper, buying credits is a scam with many of those companies. If Al truly cared, he would actually reduce the amount of pollution he spews by opening his mouth. Nobel Peace Prize my a ss.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Maud, you’re a very angry liberal.

A bit chopped up, but makes my point.

“The first rationale presented for the war was to destroy Iraq’s
weapons of mass destruction.” This familiar Democratic claim is itself
probably the biggest lie of the Iraq war, rather than anything the
president or his administration has said.

In fact, the first — and last — rationale presented for the war by the
Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war
was not the destruction of WMD but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or
regime change.

This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international
outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control
agreements it embodied, including U.N. resolutions 687 and 689, and the
15 subsequent U.N. resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of
these, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum
to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm — or else. The
ultimatum expired on Dec. 7, 2002, and America went to war three months
later.

Contrary to everything that Al Gore and other Democrats have said for
the last four years, Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements
that made up the Gulf War truce — and not the alleged existence of Iraqi
WMDs — was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops
to Iraq.

Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam
by force when he expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear
violation of the Gulf truce.

This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to
Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in
October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and
it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team,
including the secretary of state, the secretary of Defense and the
director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American
troops into Iraq in March 2003.

The Authorization for the Use of Force bill — passed by majorities of
both parties in both Houses — is the legal basis for the president’s
war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent
to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas”
clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics
of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to
stockpiles of WMD. On the other hand, 12 of the reasons for going to war
refer to U.N. resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.

Even if these indisputable facts were not staring Gore in the face, the
destruction of WMDs could not have been the “first rationale” for the
war in Iraq for this simple reason. On the very eve of the war, the
president gave Iraq an option to avoid a conflict with American forces.

On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour
ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if
Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American
invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’
crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of
Saddam.

If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left
in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign
Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The
idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the
truce accords of 1991 and U.N. Resolution 1441. This would have led to
Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMD
or WMD programs that Saddam may have had — without necessitating a war.

Ignoring — and distorting — the facts about how and why his country went
to war, … repeats the slanders of the president — and therefore his
country — that have become a familiar aspect of our political life.

The charges are transparently designed to destroy the authority of
America’s commander in chief, while his troops are in harm’s way — an
unprecedented sabotage of a war in progress.

Even so, the argument that Bush manipulated the facts about Iraqi WMD to
pursue a war policy that was aggressive and unfounded is demonstrably
false.

Bush acted on the consensus of every major intelligence agency,
including the British, the French, the Russian, the German and the
Jordanian — all of whom believed that Saddam had WMD. In other words, he
cannot reasonably be accused of inventing the existence of Saddam’s WMD,
although that is precisely what Gore and other demagogues on the left do
on an almost daily basis.

Since every Democratic senator who voted for the war was provided by the
administration with a copy the intelligence data on Saddam’s WMD, the
charge made by Gore and other Democratic senators that they were
deceived is both cynical and hypocritical as well as false.

American pilots were engaged in a low-intensity armed conflict with the
Iraqi military over the “no-fly zones” the truce had created. Clinton
and Gore had allowed Saddam to get away with breaking the truce he had
signed for two reasons. First because they were preoccupied with the
fallout from Clinton’s affair in the White House; but more importantly,
because ever since Vietnam the Democrats had shown no interest in
deploying American troops to protect the national interest (and thus had
opposed the first Gulf War).

In 1998, Saddam expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. Why would he do
so if it was not his intention to do mischief as well?

Specifically, why would he do so if it was not his intention to develop
the weapons programs, the WMD programs, that the Gulf truce outlawed and
that the U.N. inspectors were there to stop?

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 showed that Saddam’s mischief could have
serious consequences, not because Saddam had a role in 9/11, but because
Saddam celebrated and endorsed the attacks, had attempted to assassinate
an American president and had hosted terrorist organizations and
gatherings engaged in a holy war against the West.

The only reason Saddam allowed the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq in
the fall of 2002 was because Bush placed 200,000 U.S. troops on its
border. It would have been irresponsible of Bush to put those troops on
the border of a country which was violating international law unless he
meant to enforce the law. But the troops were there to go to war only if
Saddam Hussein failed to honor the 1991 truce, not to slake the
aggressive appetites of the president of the United States, as America’s
enemies — and Al Gore — maintain.

Saddam’s offer to allow the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq coincided
with Bush’s appearance at the U.N. in September 2002. His message to the
U.N. was that it needed to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant.
If U.N. did not enforce the resolutions that Saddam had violated, the
United States would do so in its stead. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore marked
the occasion by publicly attacking their own president for putting such
pressure on Saddam Hussein. This was the beginning of the Democratic
campaign to sabotage an American war in progress, which has continued
without letup ever since.

As a result of Bush’s appeal, the U.N. Security Council voted
unanimously to present Saddam with an ultimatum, and a 30-day deadline
to expire on Dec. 7, 2002.

By that date he was to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons
programs or “serious consequences would follow.” The ultimatum was U.N.
Resolution 1441 — the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce in the Gulf
War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam’s compliance.
Saddam knew that his military suppliers and political allies, Russia and
France, would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This is the
reason the United States and Britain went to war without U.N. approval,
not because George Bush preferred unilateral measures, which is simply
another Democratic deception.

Since war was not the president’s preference, first, last, or otherwise,
the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House
spent three months after the Dec. 7 deadline trying by diplomatic means
to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the U.N.
resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to
full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War
truce that they, as Security Council members, had ratified and promised
to enforce.

Virtually all of the claims that make up the core of the Democrats’
attacks on Bush’s decision to go to war — that he manipulated data on
aluminum tubes to present them as elements of an Iraqi nuclear program
and that he lied about an Iraqi attempt to buy yellowcake uranium — were
never part of the administration’s rationale for the use of force, and
were not mentioned in the Authorization for the Use of Force
congressional legislation.

They were political attempts to persuade the reluctant Europeans to
enforce the U.N. ultimatum and international law. Even then, by offering
Saddam an escape clause, Bush provided an alternative to war. If Saddam
would re-settle in Russia or some other friendly state, the United
States would not invade.

For Gore and the president’s Democratic critics, all these facts count
for nothing. In their place is the great American Satan, George Bush.
According to Gore and the Democrats, America went to war for reasons
that are either illegitimate or immoral or both.

According to Gore, the sending of American troops to Iraq was an
imperial aggression, orchestrated by the president and his advisors who
manipulated the evidence, deceived the people, and ignored the U.N. to
carry out their malign intent: “The pursuit of ‘dominance’ in foreign
policy led the Bush administration to ignore the United Nations,” writes
Gore, showing his utter contempt for the facts.

What Bush actually ignored was the French, who built Saddam’s nuclear
reactor, collaborated with Saddam’s theft of the “oil for food”
billions, and threatened to veto any attempt to enforce international
law or the U.N. ultimatum.

Bush also ignored the Russians, who supplied two-thirds of Saddam’s
weapons, helped him sabotage the U.N. sanctions, and refused to enforce
the U.N. ultimatum.

What Bush did not ignore were the 17 U.N. resolutions designed to keep
the Middle East peace and protect the world from the consequences of its
failure.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

When statisticians look at cold numbers, they have variously estimated the chances of the average person dying in America at the hands of international terrorists to be comparable to the risk of dying from eating peanuts, being struck by an asteroid or drowning in a toilet.

But worrying about terrorism could be taking a toll on the hearts of millions of Americans. The evidence, published last week in the Archives of General Psychiatry, comes from researchers who began tracking the health of a representative sample of more than 2,700 Americans before September 2001. After the attacks of Sept. 11, the scientists monitored people’s fears of terrorism over the next several years and found that the most fearful people were three to five times more likely than the rest to receive diagnoses of new cardiovascular ailments.

Almost all the people in the study lived outside New York or Washington and didn’t know any victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. But more than a 10th of them reported acute stress symptoms (like insomnia or nightmares) right after the attacks, and over the next three years more than 40 percent said they kept worrying about a terrorist attack affecting themselves or a family member.

Their worries were understandable, given the continual warnings from Washington. Officials repeatedly raised the color-coded level of the National Threat Advisory and sometimes explicitly warned of imminent attacks from terrorist cells supposedly operating in America. The alert level has never dropped below yellow (the third of the five levels). About a third to a half of Americans have continued to tell pollsters that they’re personally worried about being victims of a terrorist attack, and that an attack is somewhat or very likely within several months.

“It’s amazing how enduring these feelings of fear are, but look at what’s been going on,” said Alison Holman, a professor of nursing science at the University of California, Irvine, the lead author of the study. “I’d be surprised if those terrorist alerts didn’t contribute in some way to the ongoing worry about terrorism in our sample.”

Another of the authors, Roxane Cohen Silver, also at U.C. Irvine, is a psychologist who is on an advisory council to the Homeland Security Department.

“I’ve regularly pointed out to the department that there are psychological consequences to the raising of the alert,” Dr. Silver said. “Now we’re demonstrating that it may have physical consequences.”

The researchers caution that they’re not sure how serious the physical consequences are, because they’re relying on people reporting that their doctors have diagnosed new cardiovascular ailments. Also, studies like this show correlations, rather than an identifiable cause and effect. But since the researchers have taken into account reports of people’s health problems and anxiety that were collected before Sept. 11, and the levels of lifetime and continuing stress, they’re confident they’ve identified a worrisome increase in heart disease.

After controlling for various factors (age, obesity, smoking, other ailments and stressful life events), the researchers found that the people who were acutely stressed after the 9/11 attacks and continued to worry about terrorism — about 6 percent of the sample — were at least three times more likely than the others in the study to be given diagnoses of new heart problems.

If you extrapolate that percentage to the adult population of America, it works out to more than 10 million people. No one knows what fraction of them might consequently die of a stroke or heart attack — plenty of other factors affect heart disease — but if it were merely 0.0003 percent, that would be higher than the 9/11 death toll.

Of course, statistics of any sort, even when the numbers are rock solid, don’t mean much to people when they’re assessing threats. Risk researchers have found that even when people know the numbers, they’re less worried about death tolls than about how the deaths occur. They have good reasons — called “rival rationalities” — for fearing catastrophes that kill large numbers at once because these events affect the whole community and damage the social fabric.

Living in Fear and Paying a High Cost in Heart Risk The sponsors of the New York campaign were so pleased with the results that they papered the subways with congratulations to the riders: “Last year, 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.” But as William Neuman reported in The Times, the ads neglected to mention the number of terrorists arrested as a result of the tips: zero.
Meanwhile, how many subway riders were given diagnoses of new heart problems after riding to work every morning looking at ads reminding them that they might be blown to bits any second? Not zero, if you believe the new study.

Even before this study, some doctors were arguing that terrorism wasn’t nearly as dangerous as the related “epidemic of fear,” as Marc Siegel called it in a 2005 book, “False Alarm.” Dr. Siegel, of the New York University School of Medicine, pointed to studies linking fear of terrorism with increased risk of heart arrhythmias and elevated levels of an enzyme that correlates with heart disease.

“The fear response causes the heart to pump harder and faster, the nerves to fire more quickly,” Dr. Siegel said. “Excess triggering of this system of response causes the organs to wear down. For a person who is always on the alert, the result is a burned out body.”

It’s not fair to blame public officials alone for this fear epidemic. We in the news media have done our part to scare people. (More on how the “terrorism industry” distorts risks can be found at tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com.) But since there hasn’t been an attack in America for six years, for domestic drama we’ve had to rely on dire predictions of politicians and security officials.

What if the alerts stopped? What if the security officials looked at this new medical evidence — or at their own perfect record of false alarms — and decided that the nation did not need to be in a perpetual state of yellow alert? What if they even decided that Americans could survive without any color at all?

I guess that’s a hopeless fantasy. No politician wants to be blamed for failing to anticipate a terrorist attack. No bureaucrats willingly abandon a system that keeps them employed.

But maybe these officials could be induced to take one more precaution. The next time they raise the threat level to orange or red, they could add, “Warning: Heeding this alert may be hazardous to your health.”

Like or Dislike:

0

0

You sound like an apologist for the Republican Party trying desperately to rewrite history to conform to the debacle in Iraq. The war we brought to that country to save them from themselves has cost the lives of at least 135,000 that includes 3931 US troops. This is not a game to be won by political persuasion nor an argument to bolster the argument for the attack. These are real lives we are talking about sacrificed based on a false premise that Iraq had some weapons of “mass destruction”. By the way, there will come a day when the US will be ordered the “international community” to do something we find abhorent, such as disarm our citizens, under the threat of sanctions such as we have promulgated. The weapons of politics we have used will be used against us.

There is no justification to call evil good and good evil. No, Mr. Hussain was not a good man by any measure, but the world is filled with despots and dethroning them is out our responsibility nor is it worth US lives to do so. If they attack the US, by all means we need to defend the country. Until then, US blood should not and cannot be justified.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Is the Prius a weapon of mass destruction?

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles – the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

So, if you are an environmentalist – ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available – a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage – buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I wonder if these Prius combined energy numbers are taking into account all the hot air spewed by their drivers…

Like or Dislike:

0

0

The Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.
“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Here’s a paragraph from your post:

“But worrying about terrorism could be taking a toll on the hearts of millions of Americans. The evidence, published last week in the Archives of General Psychiatry, comes from researchers who began tracking the health of a representative sample of more than 2,700 Americans before September 2001. After the attacks of Sept. 11, the scientists monitored people’s fears of terrorism over the next several years and found that the most fearful people were three to five times more likely than the rest to receive diagnoses of new cardiovascular ailments.”

if i read that correctly, i assume these scientists were PREPARED for a terrorist attack to occur because why else would they study the fear of terrorism BEFORE an attack to be compared to fear AFTER a terrorist attack unless they knew something was going down?

Like or Dislike:

0

0

That was my thought too Reason. Also, maybe I’m being simplistic, but doesn’t it follow that if it costs more to fix a hybrid it will cost more to insure one. Tell me if I’m wrong.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

What kind of a asshat uses someone elses name?

Goober.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

And one more thing, just because I would lick George Bushes asshat if he would run again doesnt mean Im not a real man – It takes a real man to bow down in front of your hero.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

My husband’s ’62 Dart 440 Max Wedge runs on a combination of race fuel and nitrous oxide. So technically, it’s a hybrid, right?

Plus it’s old and he bought it used… so that’s like recycling and junk, too. Right?

Just wonderin.

BTW, Reason, I’m going to sue you for pain, suffering and public humiliation as I spewed coffee out of my nose reading your posts. It disrupted my co-workers who proceeded to laugh at me and I maxed out my Tide Pen trying to remove the stains from my shirt. Crap… that means I have to sue you for my dry cleaning, too. This is clearly a $65 million dollar shirt. Please post your name and address so I can have service of process sent to you. Money will make me feel much much better and it will keep you from going to hell for the awful things you’ve viciously done to me. Work for you? K, thx.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I remember when I was a kid, there was a show called Maud, played by “B” Arthur. Anyway, I was wondering if the new Chevy Volt will be as expensive to insure. I would like to buy one, but not sure I can afford the insurance.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Again, this Goober can’t even use his own alias.
What an asshat.

There is a clinical definition for the term asshat.
Asshats are people who wear their own buttocks as earmuffs. This affliction can also be known as chronic cranialrectosis. The implication here is the person in question is unable to understand the conversation because of aural obstruction, and of sufficiently dubious mental capacity to be considered part of the conversation.

But beyond the simple clinical diagnosis of one’s inclination to wear their own sphincter as a choker necklace, asshat can be a poetic term; it cannot be defined by words alone, but ideally by examples.

Here are but a few scenarios that illustrate the meaning of this great American term…

-You go through my garbage looking for cans and spread the non-can contents of the bag all over the street.

-You move into my neighborhood and leave your boxes, hunks of styrofoam, and other assorted non-bagged crap out of the street to blow around until someone else cleans it up.

-You wear one of those pseudo-vintage shirts, get manicures, pluck your eyebrows, yet get mad when people think you’re gay. Way to be different, asshat. If you don’t want to be called a duck, quick quacking.

-You go to Home Depot or Lowes with every kid you own, blocking half the friggen isle with a large flat cart to buy your weekly supply of paper towels, light bulbs, craft glue, or fly paper.

-You drive a BMW, Mercedes, or Saab and think you are better for it.

-You get angry about stuff posted on an anonymous message board.

-You walk along narrow sidewalks with 10 of your closest friends – slowly – and you do not allow anyone to pass you.

-You were my old boss.

-You put a “Bush/Cheney” sticker on your car. Not a good idea asshat. Some passionate lefty may key your car.

-You put a “Kerry/Edwards” sticker on your car. Not a good idea asshat. I may key your car.

-You wear glasses with those big retro frames, and you have perfect eyesight.

-You are a freakish/somewhat feminine guy who wanders around downtown with your annoying clone friends, complete with your greasy hair, tattoos and jeans that are way too tight for healthy circulation. Keep suffocating “Mr. Johnson” like that, and your next adventure out of your neighborhood will be to Sweden to complete your feminine transformation, asshat.

-You walk around wearing a shirt bearing the name of the school you are about to attend or were going to attend, even though you haven’t spent an hour in class at said school.

-You see a car parked on the street with the legit Hawaii license plate and make a remark to those around you about “What a long drive it must have been!”

-You laugh at the asshat who made the above comment.

-You debate Democrat vs. Republican or Mac vs.PC at length when the majority of visitors here just want to read about some asshat getting popped for insurance fraud.

-You think smoking weed is the pinnacle of coolness.

-I used to work with you, and really liked you. I asked you out for “cocktails” twice, and you backed out at the last minute both times for some BS reason. Thanks for wasting my time, asshat.

-You remind people that smoke that smoking is unhealthy. Unless they have been living in a cave for the past 25 years, they already know this, asshat.

-You pronounce names of ethnic people or restaurants as you think they should sound in their native tongue. Very worldly of you, asshat.

-You complain about stores being closed on Labor Day weekend, or any other holiday for that matter. Buy your preparation H on an unobserved holiday, asshat.

-You take your crappy job too seriously.

-You are unfriendly and strut around like you are “all that,” and then complain about being lonely on the weekend. Why do you think that is, asshat?

-You quote “The Simpsons” or any other stupid show/movie, ad nauseum.

-You sit around in a circle with other asshats in the Public Garden and talk about feelings.

-You use other people’s screen name in a feeble attempt to make others believe that the actual user of said screen name is saying something stupid but really you just come off looking like more of a loser; albeit an annonymous loser, so apparently that makes you feel OK about it, asshat.

Those are just a few of the things that come to mind when I hear the word asshat.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Figures, dealing with this asshat made me misspell my own name.
See….stupidity is contagious.

As for filing suit; lets make a deal. I’ll give you a hand with that bleach pen :wink wink: and we’ll call it even.

8>)~

Like or Dislike:

0

0

So, am I an “asshat” for just one infraction?

Like or Dislike:

0

0

It’s possible, but that’s the beauty of it; you can drift in and out of asshattiness depending on your current level of asshattery.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Yea, I think Reason got the wrong idea. His imposter was the funny one, not him.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

I hope you feel better posting that.
It may have made sense if the others didn’t address me by name in their post.

Try reading the preceding posts in their entirety before posting criticisms, asshat.

And thanks for proving my point.
lol

Like or Dislike:

0

0

Jealous of what? i blog anonymously on an insurance website. and so do you. it’s like we’re all tied for last place….and now among us we’re just deciding who really is the biggest loser.

a.w.e.s.o.m.e.

Like or Dislike:

0

0

me too….guess i shouldn’t quit my day job either. haha…

Like or Dislike:

0

0

you guys are funnier that a one legged man in a butt kickin contest.

I just love to read this stuff and speculate what you do for a day job.

must be garbage collection

Like or Dislike:

0

0

you have to remember that the basis of rates depends on a variety of factors. now if your looking at this particular type of vehicles, they present a unique situation.

1) veh you own: remember we have to consider 2 parts – damage your auto will take and those of your passengers and the amount of damage you care can give to another, including medical for any passengers in the other car. so if you have an suv, your more likely to damage another vehicle more than your own vehicle. your own veh can probably absorb damage, but repairs costs can be high.

2) when you think of Hybrids, it’s because the maintenance and repair costs are high. we have been working on regular vehicles for many years, hybrid is new and so is the maintenance of that veh. again, amount of damage given or taken, is still be assessed.