backtop

Print 75 comment(s) - last by danrien.. on Jan 9 at 10:45 PM

Third generation Toyota Prius

Ford Fusion Hybrid
"Smug Emissions" are in full effect

Hybrids have been a part of the regular U.S. automotive landscape since the turn of the century. Honda first brought us the Insight and Toyota followed up with two generations (and soon a third) of the Prius. The prevalence of Toyota's Prius on America's roads -- and the green "smug emissions" of some drivers -- has led many to mock and berate hybrid drivers.

Now it appears that non-hybrid drivers will have even more reason to hate hybrid drivers. To go along with the hybrid-only HOV lanes and tax credits that are prevalent for hybrid owners, many cities are extending the hybrid love train to include parking spaces.

According to USA Today, the parking "perks" can be found in Illinois, California, New York, and New Jersey. For example, Big Bowl restaurants in Illinois provide free valet parking for drivers of hybrid vehicles. The Chicago Tribune reports that the valet fee ($5 or $10 depending on location) is deducted from the final check.

Not surprisingly, not everyone is happy with the hybrid parking spaces -- especially those that drive fuel efficient vehicle that aren't hybrids. A 4-year old ordinance in Fresno, California was struck down after owners of fuel efficient non-hybrids complained about hybrid drivers hogging free parking spaces on a continual basis.

As more and more hybrid vehicles are released into the marketplace, the penchant for providing dedicated hybrid-only parking may be diminished. All of the major auto manufacturers have a number of hybrid vehicles planned for release in the next 1-2 years.

Ford has gained a lot of coverage in recent months for its new Fusion Hybrid which is EPA rated at 41 MPG/ 36 MPG city/highway. The vehicle also recently won a 4-way comparison test of midsize hybrid sedans at Car and Driver.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
So I go to Bloom
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2009 8:45:04 AM , Rating: 5
And the best parking spots are reserved for..

1. Handicap
2. Expectant mothers
3. Women with small children
4. 20 minute or less shopping

Pretty soon if every special interest group gets their way, I'll be having to park in the very back row. If I'm LUCKY !




RE: So I go to Bloom
By mdogs444 on 1/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: So I go to Bloom
By Aloonatic on 1/6/2009 9:40:08 AM , Rating: 4
I look forward to seeing the little symbols that hey come up with to paint on the parking spaces for each of those minority groups.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 10:11:16 AM , Rating: 1
Gays: The letters "NSYNC"
Lesbians: Rossie O'Donnells face
Transgender: Michael Jackson's face
Bisexual: A drunk college chicks face
Goth freaks: Marilyn Manson's face.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Aloonatic on 1/6/2009 10:30:39 AM , Rating: 4
Would be a good time to be a transsexual goth, you could argue that you could park in all of those 5 parking spaces.

Apart from that fact that you would be a transsexual goth of course, not that I've got anything against transsexuals or goths, if that's your thing.

OK, I'm going to stop typing now....


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Lord 666 on 1/6/2009 7:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
You can cover the first four by using LGTB

People aren't born Goth like the above groups so they are irrelevant.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By danrien on 1/9/2009 10:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
goth would argue against that.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By MrBlastman on 1/6/2009 10:04:56 AM , Rating: 5
Look, these people are "entitled" to have their spots! You are lucky you're even allowed to park at all. You should be happy with your two bit parking spot in the back where you get your doors dinged in, rocks thrown at your car and have to deal with deep puddles of water in the rain.

/sarcasm

What a load of BS. Hybrid owners, special parking treatment? Come on. If they are really serious about saving the environment, they would be more than happy to park in the back row, allowing the gas guzzlers first spot so they don't have to burn up as much gas looking for a parking spot.

What a bunch of hypocrisy.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Samus on 1/7/2009 3:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
goth freaks? ohh my God those people don't actually drive do they?


RE: So I go to Bloom
By theapparition on 1/6/2009 9:40:04 AM , Rating: 3
And why is parking in the back bad? Walking is healthy for you.

You seriously expect to get sympathy by denying the handicaped, expectant mothers and those with newborns perferential treatment. Try living 1 day without using your legs and you'll gain appreciation of why those spots are there.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Aloonatic on 1/6/2009 9:46:55 AM , Rating: 3
*sees old man over take him on a wheel chair and then spots an empty one lying around*

"Here I am, using my legs like a sucker!"

*Jumps into wheel chair sand zooms past old man*

- I forget the Simpsons episode but I think gist of what I wrote is fairly accurate :)

Seriously though, you are quite right but some stores seem to go a little over the top in their estimation of the number of people with disabilities and young children.

On the young children front, those spots are good for all of us as I'd rather those parents were parked in their own larger spaces when the fling their doors open to get to the kids in the child seats, rather then having them parked in a cramped spot next to my car which would almost inevitably end up with a dent in my door.

*scans through comment to make sure that no "denting my back door" or "battering my back door" references are in there*


RE: So I go to Bloom
By bob4432 on 1/6/2009 12:44:09 PM , Rating: 3
w/ the disabled, it is not the store but more than likely the city based on the size of the store. if you have x amount of sq ft, you need x amount of handicap spots. not sure about the ones w/ all the kids though, they are not around my area, just the handicap ones and possibly some 5min parking for take-out orders at restaurants.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 9:49:45 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah all those obese people with handicap stickers sure need to be parking in the front row.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By mdogs444 on 1/6/2009 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 1
Seriously. Giving them two airplane seats for the price of one, giving them "handicapped" tags, etc.

We're condoning the obesity problem. Charge them double, and give them a "I'm a lazy fata$$" sticker on their license plates that requires a back of the lot parking spot.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By MrBlastman on 1/6/2009 10:50:26 AM , Rating: 3
Wall-E might be on to something.

I can't even start to say how many times I've seen someone using a handicapped spot in some flashy Mercedes/Lexus who has no sign at all as being handicapped or needing that spot.

Certainly they do not need it as much as the mother who has a daughter that is confined to a wheelchair and has a collostomy bag hanging out one side of it. Yet, they feel they are entitled to it equally as those who really are less fortunate.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 10:54:08 AM , Rating: 3
My uncle who's diabetic has a handicap sticker as he's lost all his toes and half of one of his feet. But he generally has no issues walking. But he'll probably need that sticker a lot more in the next year as he'll likely lose one of his legs(has already been told the bone is dead), both if he doesn't cut back on his drinking and change his eating habits. :(


RE: So I go to Bloom
By theapparition on 1/6/2009 1:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
Very sorry to hear of your uncle. My father lost both legs to diabetes............so I'm a little sensitive to the handicaped issue.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Lord 666 on 1/6/2009 7:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Friend's 5 year old son is paralyzed due to car accident and now has perm handicapped plates on mom's car. http://www.flickr.com/photos/23386028@N08/22827533...

When he isn't with her, she doesn't park in those spots. Several times when she sees people walking to their cars (without tags or plates) parked in the handicapped spots, she has confronted them and even got physical in one instance against these people in my presence. In the long run, she should be taking pictures with cell phone of their plates and reporting to police.

Was very proud of her for taking that position and even had to hold back from "helping" out.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Oregonian2 on 1/6/2009 4:54:28 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, you can't always tell by just looking. My wife has a handicapped parking card, and she may look "normal", but she's struggling. She's been on an organ transplant list for some time and has diabetes as well (among other things). It's not always a limp, one's energy level to walk a significant distance also can be greatly compromised without visible signs.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By foolsgambit11 on 1/6/2009 5:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
My sister-in-law had a heart transplant a few years ago. I remember going for a mile-long walk with her, then shortly thereafter, getting in the car and going down to the store, where we got to park in a handicapped spot.

I understand that it is difficult to tell exactly who needs (or deserves, if you like) preferential treatment. I understand that transplantees frequently don't do as well as my sister-in-law. But sometimes, I wonder about the people with handicapped 'perks'.

As a little post-script, my sister-in-law still has the right to park in handicapped spots, but she doesn't, because she feels wrong about it.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By HostileEffect on 1/6/2009 12:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
Requiring a specific parking place is the part that I don't agree with.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By theapparition on 1/6/2009 1:35:09 PM , Rating: 1
And I've yet to hear of any real reason from you for walking a little bit further. Them designer jeans of yours getting a little too tight on the hips? :P


RE: So I go to Bloom
By mdogs444 on 1/6/2009 1:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
My designer denim happen to fit just perfect thanks. And I purpose park far away to stay away from other cars and inconsiderate people who leave carts all over.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 2:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I purposefully park in the back to stay away from other cars. Its also partly because I'm not lazy and don't mind walking the extra 100 feet.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Dreifort on 1/6/2009 3:54:53 PM , Rating: 3
you're just twisting your words you rich Republican. you own a BMW and don't want anyone scratching your doors - don't lie! haha.

Soon, the hybrids will have priority over fire trucks.

Order of parking priority: Hybrids, Fire, Police, Handicapped, Pregnant/Expectant Mothers & Employee of the Month.

Damn Hybrids.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 9:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
I will never drive a BMW.

And damn right I don't want people scratching my doors. What about "I park away from all the other cars" is unclear about that?


RE: So I go to Bloom
By icrf on 1/6/2009 10:15:06 AM , Rating: 3
If you are handicapped in some way where it's difficult to walk, then by all means, you're deserving (well, not the lazy obese, but clinical obese is okay). When I'm in a store and it starts to rain, and someone _runs_ to their car to roll up the windows...in a handicapped spot with a handicapped tag, there is something wrong with the system. In general, my sympathies are low.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By TomZ on 1/6/2009 12:50:27 PM , Rating: 3
There is no question that some people "cheat" the handicap parking "system"; however, that is not a logical argument against it generally.

I was on crutches for a portion of last year. It gave me a more heightened appreciation for those who (rightly) benefit from the closer parking spots.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By theapparition on 1/6/2009 1:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Tom,
Stop trying to bring logic in here. :-)


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2009 4:39:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You seriously expect to get sympathy by denying the handicaped, expectant mothers and those with newborns perferential treatment.


Yeah thats clearly what I was trying to do with my post.

/sarcasm

Idiot.

quote:
Try living 1 day without using your legs and you'll gain appreciation of why those spots are there


Try living every day with a major reconstructed left knee that, on a good day, always hurts. On days like today where its been raining, I'm eating pain pills like candy.

quote:
Walking is healthy for you.


Actually no.. not so much.

But nice call with your ASSumptions. Oh and I don't have a handicap sticker by the way and I hope I never will.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By theapparition on 1/7/2009 9:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah thats clearly what I was trying to do with my post.

/sarcasm

Idiot.

You make a post complaining about handicaped spots and you have the nerve to call me an idiot?
FYI, sarcasm only works if its funny, you.....not so much.

Good luck with your rehabilitation, and I mean that sincerely.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Lord 666 on 1/7/2009 10:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
The pain meds also explain your recent erratic posts... especially about children.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Screwballl on 1/6/2009 11:05:44 AM , Rating: 2
OK so since the hybrids are driven by healthy and fairly well to do people, make them park at back since they get the better gas mileage and are healthy enough to walk the extra 50-100 feet.
Where is the "low income" parking where the vehicle has to be at minimum 10 years old, paint at least partially faded and have to show proof of low income residence.

Nope, the "well to do" get a break once again.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By mdogs444 on 1/6/2009 11:11:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nope, the "well to do" get a break once again.

On this particular topic of Hybrid parking, I think the entire thing is stupid and wreaks of Communofornia liberalism.

However, whats all this "well to do get a break again" crap? Last time I checked, us "well to do" people pay taxes where the low incomes dont. We "well to do" have to support those "low income" with education grants, scholarships, welfare, housing, food stamps, healthcare, etc...need I go on?

The "low income" have no room to even open their mouths in regards to wanting something else that the "well to dos" get.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Jimbo1234 on 1/6/2009 2:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
We "well to do" support the low income with scholarships so someday they may have the chance to be in our position.

Scholarships are voluntarily given. I have personally chosen to give $1000 per year to a local HS's student with need for college. Or I suppose they could skip their education and require government aid for life instead. Which would you prefer?


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Jimbo1234 on 1/6/2009 3:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
It must be nice to be born with a silver spoon. Typical conservative.


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2009 4:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It must be nice to be born with a silver spoon. Typical conservative.


???

I thought Conservatives were the poor dirt farming red necks holding this country back and the Liberals were the higher learned successful upper class politico types ??


RE: So I go to Bloom
By foolsgambit11 on 1/6/2009 6:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
Right. Because the Bushes are dirt-farming Yalies. Because Wm. F. Buckley, founder of the modern conservative movement, was a redneck. Because the stereotype of conservatives is not that they are spoiled little rich boys beholden to corporations.
</sarcasm>
In all seriousness, there is no more validity to the accusations of conservative elites than there is to the accusations of liberal elites. I'm pretty sure that poll after poll has shown that, while activists and politicians in each party may vary, when it comes to income and education, the parties overall defy neat little boxes.

Check out the final results from the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, by the way - the more money you made, the more likely you were to vote for Bush. The trend is similar, though less pronounced, in the 2008 Presidential elections (Obama shook some things up, I guess). Also, generally speaking, the more education you have, the more likely you are to vote Republican, until you get a post-graduate degree, then you are usually several points more likely to be a Dem. (So maybe that's where the 'higher learned' part comes from, though the statistic hardly supports the idea that Republicans are uneducated - it far more supports the idea that Democrats are uneducated.)

I say all this being a high-school graduate, Democrat-leaning (not officially party affiliated) male, with 6 years in the Army, from an agricultural community who made less than $20,000 last year, but nearly $120,000 in 2007 (hooray military contracting!) - so who knows what income category I should count as....

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/sta...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#US...


RE: So I go to Bloom
By Reclaimer77 on 1/6/2009 8:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
No no you got me all wrong.

If you actually listen to the way Liberals speak about Conservatives, and especially the people of the southern states, you will see what I meant.

And of course successful people are more likely to vote Republican. Liberals are constantly preaching about how the rich are evil, need to be taxed more, so the wealth can be "spread". Why the hell would you vote for that if you are rich ?

But honestly I made a social commentary and you went WAY overboard bud :D


wtf
By alu on 1/6/2009 9:52:40 AM , Rating: 1
no other nation has such issues
european diesel might just be greener to manufacture and to drive compared to a US hybrid
the farts might be cleaner as well
and liberalism has a different meaning across the ocean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Positions_...




RE: wtf
By mdogs444 on 1/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: wtf
By astralsolace on 1/6/2009 10:47:45 AM , Rating: 3
Bull. This is the same type of reactionary nonsense similar to the people being boycotted for donating to Prop 8 turning around and claiming they're victims of intolerance, when the only thing happening is public light being shined on those voting to discriminate others.

"Help me! I'm a persecuted religious minority that simply voted my conscience to deny others legal, secular rights, but I justify my position by contradictorily claiming to be the moral majority!"


RE: wtf
By mdogs444 on 1/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: wtf
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 11:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
Because the true minority thinks it should.


RE: wtf
By TomZ on 1/6/2009 12:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The nation was founded on Judao-Christian principals, the majority of the country is religious in one way or another...
How much justification for bigotry has begun with a statement such as this, in our history as a country? Each time I hear "Judao-Christian blah blah blah" I just know it's coming.

The ironic thing is that the so-called Christians who spew this type of tripe are in direct contradiction with what Christ taught. You think Christ would have advocated hatrid, judgement, exclusion, discrimination? If you think so, then back to Sunday School for you, because you missed the lesson entirely.


RE: wtf
By mdogs444 on 1/6/2009 1:22:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
ow much justification for bigotry has begun with a statement such as this, in our history as a country? Each time I hear "Judao-Christian blah blah blah" I just know it's coming.

You must really hate the truth don't you Tom? No one says you have to agree with the principals, but you cannot say those claims are false.

The country WAS founded on Judao-Christian beliefs, which is well documented and fact.

The majority of the nation is religious in one form or another, and no Atheist does not count as a religion.

So go ahead and say the majority of the country's people are bigots, but it really doesn't matter does it? Don't blame religion for people not accepted the gay lifestyle & gay marriage. Ever thought that people just find it repulsive, not natural, and don't buy into the "we're born this way" stuff? Cmon, use your head Tom.


RE: wtf
By TomZ on 1/6/2009 1:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The country WAS founded on Judao-Christian beliefs, which is well documented and fact.
There are a lot of things today in our country that are different today than they were when our country was founded. That is a more important and relevant fact.

Besides, I and many other Americans view our country as a great melting pot where people of different backgrounds and different views can live together. Your very narrow and exclusionary view of right-and-wrong is clearly inconsistent with this idea. And I also think your view is contrary to what Christ would preach if here could speak to us directly today. I notice you ignored that point completely.

Finally, I find kimche "repulsive" and "not natural" but that doesn't mean I'm against other people eating it. People should be free to live their lives in whatever way they choose - your religion (and mine) should not enter into that. Freedom is a fundamental human right, period.


RE: wtf
By mdogs444 on 1/6/2009 1:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, its not like I'm telling anyone they aren't welcome here. I personally could care less what they do, as long as its not in front of me. And personally I do not support gay marriage, homosexual acceptance in grade schools, etc. I do not see it as acceptable, and its not just my religion. I haven't even been to church in about 10 years.


RE: wtf
By TomZ on 1/6/2009 2:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hey, its not like I'm telling anyone they aren't welcome here.
No, you're just saying that some people shouldn't have the same rights as others, based on how your moral compass points. That's just as bad in my mind.

Besides, even if you don't see it as acceptable, how does that change the fact that it actually exists? It does - and if you don't "accept it," then you are denying hard reality.

And whether homosexuality is nurture or nature is also irrelevant - the point is that we all have the right to equal protection under the law. That's one of the founding principles of our country that we have not yet fully realized, more than 200 years later. Backwards attitudes like yours are the reason. But going forward, the likes of you will eventually lose, since people have a basic instinct for right and wrong, regardless of how this gets twisted by some of the religious institutions in the meantime.


RE: wtf
By darklight0tr on 1/6/2009 2:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever thought that people just find it repulsive, not natural, and don't buy into the "we're born this way" stuff?


I can tell you from experience that you are very much born with it. I struggled with my homosexuality for years before I was finally able to come to terms with it. I desperately tried dating girls, to no avail. I even considered suicide.

There isn't a switch that I can turn off to suddenly make myself straight. Why would I willingly subject myself to the scorn and bigotry that people apply to gays?

Think what you want of me, but I don't think of you as a "damn breeder."


RE: wtf
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 2:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
I personally do believe gays are born the way they are. I have met plenty of gay people and they have all been very nice and cool. When I lived in Milwaukee, one of the guys in the group I hung out with was gay. He was quite open about it and even made gay jokes about himself. I bear no ill will towards the gay community (except those who think its ok to throw it in our faces with retarded parades and crap).

You want health benefits, death benefits, hospital visitation, etc? Fine. I could care less.

I just think marriage is between a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Could it be called discrimination? I suppose so. But I'm not going to change my mind on it. To me marriage is a union between a man and woman. One with the ability to have kids should they choose to (although sometimes not able to due to medical reasons). Gays can't do that without outside help no matter how well the machinery works.


RE: wtf
By TomZ on 1/6/2009 3:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Legal recognition of gay marriage is necessary in our country because we have the principle of equal protection under the law. Legal recognition confers a number of associated benefits, none of which can be justifiably withheld from certain members of our society.

If a religious organization deems certain behavior immoral, they have a right to deny marriage within that organization. But that should be distinct from the legal recognition, as the OP stated.

The reason that the two are mingled is due to history; it does not make sense logically.


RE: wtf
By darklight0tr on 1/6/2009 4:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
From my response below:

quote:
The reason that gays are pushing so hard for marriage is there currently is no other way to achieve the same recognition and rights as straight couples. Since marriage is used at the state and federal level as the qualification for nearly all rights and benefits, the supposedly separate but equal domestic partnership doesn't cut it.

The best solution would be for all levels of government to take the religious aspect out and adopt the civil marriage concept, which would recognize a union between two consenting adults. You then leave holy matrimony to the churches, who are free to define it any way they please. How we do it now flies against the separation of church and state.


The solution above would satisfy both my position and most of yours as well. I'm not trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. But since it is inherently tied to all of the benefits I desire, either I need to be allowed to marry or the definition itself needs to change. I vote for the latter.


RE: wtf
By astralsolace on 1/6/2009 2:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The country WAS founded on Judao-Christian beliefs, which is well documented and fact.


Actually, the country was founded on people trying to escape persecution from a religious authority trying to dictate their morality on them. Where have I seen this before? HMM..

Look up the history of the pilgrims and then come back and tell me again what we were founded on.

Separation of Church and State protects both religious people AND non-religious people.


RE: wtf
By foolsgambit11 on 1/6/2009 7:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The country WAS founded on Judao-Christian beliefs, which is well documented and fact.
Well, I think when most people (by which I mean historians) list the founding principles of this country, they refer to things like the works of John Locke. They use words like 'secular republic'. They were afraid of 'religious tyranny', and the 'tyranny of the majority'.

Also, I very rarely hear people start with "Judeo-Christian ethics" and continue on to talk about tolerance or compassion. It's like they throw the "Judeo-" onto the front to emphasize the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.

And in the end, does it matter what the Founders felt? It matters what they wrote down, what they codified. They had their personal beliefs, and they had their social beliefs. Southern plantation owners were 'good Christians' and Founding Fathers. What's more, there's a stronger argument to support slavery than to support a ban on gay marriage. Both in using the Founders' intent, and using the Bible.

In the end, the problem here is the failure to properly separate Church and State. The State went and made law the Church's institution of marriage, and gave the Church certain legal powers regarding the institution. That was the State's mistake. So we now are stuck with two intertwined institutions called 'marriage' - the legal institution and the religious institution. The solution? The State has to give way on this one. Change the legal institution's name, in all cases, including heterosexual marriages. Then 'marriage' is only between a man and a woman, and is only a religious institution. Some other legal contract, given by a justice of the peace, that most married couples would get, would give the legal benefits currently associated with marriage. Any two people (of legal age to enter into contracts) would be eligible to enter into this contract of union.

I know this solution only superficially addresses the concerns of those against gay marriage. But it's high time that those people learn that heterosexual marriage isn't a right, either. There's no 'right to straight marriage' in the Constitution. Your church can still unite you in the eyes of God, but the State won't give you any benefits that would give preferential treatment to a religious institution.


RE: wtf
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 2:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
Who say's I hate gays? Not wanting them to get married does not mean I hate them. Am I also a bigot because I want people who move the US to speak English and don't like people coming here illegally when there are thousands waiting in line or jumping through hoops to stay here legally?

And even the pope is against gay marriage. Is he not in touch with Christ's message?

Now me, I don't believe in Jesus.


RE: wtf
By foolsgambit11 on 1/6/2009 7:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not wanting equal rights for gay couples is certainly different than hating gays. I'm sure you're also against pets having the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. That doesn't mean you hate pets, just that they're less than human, and don't deserve the same rights. Just like gay people, hmmm?

Sorry, I know that's confrontational and a little unfair. But I really do see dehumanization of gay people as the root of the issue here, just like people dehumanized slaves.


RE: wtf
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 9:39:11 PM , Rating: 3
Yes....that's the issue.....I see gays as dogs....


RE: wtf
By darklight0tr on 1/6/2009 1:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? What ever happened to protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

The reason that gays are pushing so hard for marriage is there currently is no other way to achieve the same recognition and rights as straight couples. Since marriage is used at the state and federal level as the qualification for nearly all rights and benefits, the supposedly separate but equal domestic partnership doesn't cut it.

The best solution would be for all levels of government to take the religious aspect out and adopt the civil marriage concept, which would recognize a union between two consenting adults. You then leave holy matrimony to the churches, who are free to define it any way they please. How we do it now flies against the separation of church and state.

On topic, these hybrid parking spaces are BS, a point on which most of us can agree.


RE: wtf
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 10:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
So despite the fact that Christianity is by far the dominant religion in the US, someone voting based on their beliefs is in the religious minority?


Only liberals are this stupid
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 8:13:05 AM , Rating: 1
"Hey is that a hybrid? Here's a free parking space."

"THANKSSSS...*sniffs fart*"




RE: Only liberals are this stupid
By mdogs444 on 1/6/2009 8:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, that episode was great! But in all honesty, I think the San Francisco people have been sniffing their own farts many years prior to the hybrid. Then again, these are the same people who hold conventions in the middle of the streets and hang themselves by hook & chain, march into churchs in drag, buy illegal aliens a first class ticket anywhere they want as opposed to turning them over to ICE, and now they want to charge people more money for driving in congested areas to, above all things, combat global warming. And we haven't even gotten to Code Pink and the city of Berkley yet...

Can we kick Commufornia out and have only 49 states?


By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 10:07:34 AM , Rating: 3
I'm waiting for it to fall into the ocean. Sure we'll have to watch reruns for a decade and some of the tech industry will be gone. But we'll live.


RE: Only liberals are this stupid
By mmntech on 1/6/2009 9:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
That they are. We have those spots here in Soviet Canuckistan in front of our local grocery store (Loblaws). It's just asinine. Every time I go there, the spot is empty. I should just park there because I drive a Civic, which has a hybrid model. What are they going to do? Check under the hood to make sure its legit? lol. The same store also is huge on the green bandwagon. They don't even give you bags, or boxes. Even Costco gives you boxes so I just shop there instead.


That's a load of bull
By corduroygt on 1/6/2009 9:12:52 AM , Rating: 3
Who cares what technology the car uses as long as it's fuel efficient? They may use preferential treatment based on mpg, not hybrid. A honda civic or a jetta TDI is much better for the environment than a lexus rx400h, and should get the parking spots instead.




RE: That's a load of bull
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 9:53:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but then you'll make rich people walk....

And I don't think you should get preferential parking treatment regardless of what kind of car you drive. You're not better than anyone else just because you drive a hybrid.

And exclusive freeway lanes for hybrid cars? That's retarded. Hybrids are at their worst on the highway since the hybrid system is worthless at a constant speed and is just extra weight for the gas engine to drag along. If anything hybrids should have to sit in traffic since they don't use any fuel while at a stand still(at least most shut off the engine at 0 mph).

This is nothing but environmentalist hippie bullshit.


HOV means what?
By SilentRunning on 1/6/2009 11:44:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Now it appears that non-hybrid drivers will have even more reason to hate hybrid drivers. To go along with the hybrid-only HOV lanes and tax credits that are prevalent for hybrid owners, many cities are extending the hybrid love train to include parking spaces.


HOV lane = High Occupancy Vehicle lane. They have just give single occupancy hybrids and exception to the rule.




RE: HOV means what?
By SilentRunning on 1/6/2009 11:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
The spelling curse correction:

They have just given single occupancy hybrids an exception to the rule.


They're not smug, you're jealous.
By reader1 on 1/6/09, Rating: 0
By mdogs444 on 1/6/2009 9:22:07 AM , Rating: 1
reader1 sniffs farts.


By FITCamaro on 1/6/2009 9:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
One of your dumber comments.

So anyone not driving a hybrid is driving an obsolete piece of crap huh? Including those who drive fuel efficient gas or diesel cars that get comparable mileage to hybrids without heavy, polluting batteries.


By 1078feba on 1/6/2009 11:22:09 AM , Rating: 3
Because I guarantee that people parking in these spots will experience an inordinately high incidence of vandalism.




Big Bowl sucks
By Jimbo1234 on 1/6/2009 2:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
Big Bowl is one of the worst restaurants I have been to. We used to have one in town and it closed within about 3 months of opening. "Chinese and Thai" as they try to call it is a mess of both Americanized into one. Purely awful. Now some panang curry at a real Thai place I could eat every day.




Class-action suit!
By belowsealevel on 1/7/2009 4:21:24 AM , Rating: 2
If any owner of a hybrid or electric vehicle develops cancer, they should contact me. If cell phones can cause cancer, why can't the electro magnetic radiation emitted from these systems cause cancer? If we are going to create all these electric/electronic systems and devices, I am afraid we are going to see an explosion in cancer cases, and thereafter lawsuits to recover damages, much like the ones associated with tobacco, asbestos, etc. When I bought a house, some years ago, I had to sign a release, accepting the risks posed by the high-voltage power lines that towered at the edge of the development. We need to start collecting names and data now, so we are protected in the future. Please contact me through Daily Tech.




For Pete's sake...
By consumerwhore on 1/6/09, Rating: 0
"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki