|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 27, 2008 19:00:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 27, 2008 21:45:46 GMT -5
So the Insurance Commissioner is placing being green ahead of everything else. Brilliant.
By putting the hysteria or global warming ahead of the reality of insurance premiums, Poizner has shown his priorities... and his ambition for higher office. The way the above quote is written reads like just another socialist push to get us out of our cars and onto some form of public transportation.
[/size]
So... if the program is voluntary on the part of the insurance companies, and there is no mechanism to verify mileage, then exactly what good is it, really?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 28, 2008 13:25:59 GMT -5
What is so great about the idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 28, 2008 15:17:56 GMT -5
What is so great about the idea? I like it because those of us who drive more pay more. It makes sense not only from an insurance standpoint (because people who drive a lot are more likely to have an accident), but also because they contribute to greater wear and tear on our roads and they emit more greenhouse gasses which is something that affects us all. The type of vehicle driven and the level of emissions it puts out should also be factored in. The Big Dog makes a good point though, if there is no mechanism to verify mileage what's the use? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 28, 2008 15:22:26 GMT -5
There really is no use. You just need to put more faith in your fellow man. But, you don't trust conservatives. I, for one, would love to see a reduction in pollution, just for my general health. Because frankly, I don't buy into the Climate Change fairy tale being told to our children.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 28, 2008 15:23:04 GMT -5
Oh, and my taxes already pay enough for road maintenance, if the government did not divert the funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 28, 2008 15:26:27 GMT -5
Oh, I see you have smote me again, with out a reason. Man, that just makes me smile, because I know I have gotten to you and you have no valid reply. Tough to not smite someone who can refute most of what you say using a bit of research. It must be frustrating for you to be wrong so often.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 28, 2008 15:27:03 GMT -5
Don't worry, I won't smite you without an explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 28, 2008 15:51:50 GMT -5
Let's see, people who don't drive much are safer than people who get lots of practice. Makes sense to me. That is why people who only golf once a week can beat Tiger Woods. Yep, makes a whole lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 28, 2008 22:11:00 GMT -5
good thing they explained that to me because when i read the headline i thought it was a "price break" for those who drove less! silly me, eh? i should've know that it was really a ploy to make people who drive feel guilty about g l o b a l w a r m i n g.
it was over 100 today in some parts. must've been a lot of people driving extra far and extra hard in order to create that kind of g l o b a l w a r m i n g today, huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 28, 2008 23:23:26 GMT -5
It amazes me when "conservatives" don't know the meaning of conservation!
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 29, 2008 12:45:48 GMT -5
It amazes me when "conservatives" don't know the meaning of conservation!  Is that an attempt at humor? Conservation is what I do. I drive a 4 cylinder vehicle, which gets excellent gas millage. I walk when possible. I limit my trips. Why should I have more legislation, that is not conservation. |
|
