why that was nice

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

The rest of us must resort to windmills and death trap smart cars to do our part.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Smart car gets highest score in crash testsSize may be less of an issue in potential urban accidents — study

WASHINGTON - Unlike most cars on the road, the pint-sized 2008 Smart fortwo evokes a simple question at first glance: “How safe is it?”

The micro car, the smallest car for sale in the U.S. market, offers a good level of safety, according to new crash tests conducted by the insurance industry.

The 8-foot, 8-inch vehicle received the highest rating of good in front-end and side-impact testing by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, helping address some concerns that consumers may be more vulnerable in the tiny two-seater.

The tests, released Wednesday, show how well vehicles stack up against others of similar size and weight. The institute noted that the front-end test scores can’t be compared across weight classes, meaning a small car that earns a good rating isn’t considered safer than a large car that did not earn the highest rating.

Adrian Lund, the institute’s president, said a small car may be more practical in congested urban areas where serious, high-speed crashes are less likely. The institute conducted the crash test to help guide consumers who want a small car that can give them good protection.

“All things being equal in safety, bigger and heavier is always better. But among the smallest cars, the engineers of the Smart did their homework and designed a high level of safety into a very small package,” Lund said.

The institute’s frontal crash test simulates a 40 mile per hour crash with a similar vehicle. The side crash simulates what would happen if the vehicle was struck in the side by a sport utility vehicle at 31 mph.

In a test that assessed the vehicle’s protection in rear crashes, the fortwo received the second-highest rating of acceptable.

wrong.

 

[Ryan1126]

wrong.

okay, well how about you go buy one, drive it off of a cliff, and you let us know your opinion on how safe it is.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

okay, well how about you go buy one, drive it off of a cliff, and you let us know your opinion on how safe it is.

As soon as you drive any other car off a cliff.

Shit.. i drive an 1989 jeep grand wagoneer.. weighs like 5,000 pounds and i wouldnt drive it off a cliff..

I can call haul 2,000 pounds of concrete mix in it though and it doesnt impact the MPG at all.. take that smart car. .

 

[powerstroker 10+ year member]

wrong.

So, that says that if a smart car collides with another "death trap car" of equal size, it will do pretty well. I will keep that in mind if I ever ride a go-kart through the streets of D.C.

How about this article? From the NY Times of all people. We all know they are B.O. nuthuggers and they even know better than to try and tell us that those little plastic cars are safe.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/small-cars-rate-poorly-in-new-crash-tests/

Not so wrong after all.

Barry can keep his hybrid death traps. With the sheer amount of vehicles on the highways and the idiots behind the wheels of them, I will keep my Expedition and F-250. When the dust settles after a head on with a Prius, my wife and kids will walk away from it. At least that little box car can double as a casket for the dummy driving it. It's sad that the hippies and our politicians with hidden agendas care more about some UNPROVEN global warming hoopla than they do the safety of the American people.

 

[Ryan1126]

As soon as you drive any other car off a cliff.
Shit.. i drive an 1989 jeep grand wagoneer.. weighs like 5,000 pounds and i wouldnt drive it off a cliff..

I can call haul 2,000 pounds of concrete mix in it though and it doesnt impact the MPG at all.. take that smart car. .

ill pass, what i get from that is, its safe against another smart car or any car of equal size, what happens if a bigger vehicle hits it? people are dumb. i will never resort to this. I will ride my dirt bike, and use my gas powered weed whacker and lawn mower and drive my big suv. Im not gonna be here for very long so im gonna have fun while i am here.

 

[Ryan1126]

So, that says that if a smart car collides with another "death trap car" of equal size, it will do pretty well. I will keep that in mind if I ever ride a go-kart through the streets of D.C.
How about this article? From the NY Times of all people. We all know they are B.O. nuthuggers and they even know better than to try and tell us that those little plastic cars are safe.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/small-cars-rate-poorly-in-new-crash-tests/

Not so wrong after all.

Barry can keep his hybrid death traps. With the sheer amount of vehicles on the highways and the idiots behind the wheels of them, I will keep my Expedition and F-250. When the dust settles after a head on with a Prius, my wife and kids will walk away from it. At least that little box car can double as a casket for the dummy driving it. It's sad that the hippies and our politicians with hidden agendas care more about some UNPROVEN global warming hoopla than they do the safety of the American people.

agreed.

 

[mcsoul 10+ year member]

Even his 10yo wives can't feel him.

 

[subzero 5,000+ posts]

I don’t think generating clouds is going to solve the air pollutants problem. It would cool the atmosphere down maybe? Sure would make it more humid world wide and that would also cause an increase in thermal radiant heat. Trapping the heat even more so. Trying to changing the earth atmosphere would not be a good idea, I think. Shutting down the cause of pollutants would do more good. Nature would clean itself up after 50 years or so. After all, this global warming did not happen overnight. So it isn’t going away over night. Just my opinion.

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Global warming doesn't exist. Fixed.

And I'll drive whatever I **** well please...and it ain't gonna be an air duct on wheels (aka "smart car").

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Modern Christianity is sometimes criticized for attempting to tie the Gospel to a right wing political ideology. Unfortunately, some of this criticism is justifiable. Having a consistently Biblical world view will not always fit neatly into "left wing" or "right wing" categories. As we obey the Bible's call to confront sin and moral decay, will we include confronting such sins as denying justice to the poor (Isaiah 10:1-3; Ezekiel 18:12; 22:29 ), exploiting the poor for material gain (Amos 6:1-7), and defrauding workers of their wages (Malachi 3:5)? While we rightfully speak out on behalf on the millions of children who die in abortion mills each year, should we not speak out just as loudly for the millions of children who die from malnutrition? These are not a matter of political ideology. They are matters of faithfulness to God's Word.

On the other hand, many of those on the political left fall into the same error. While rightfully emphasizing Jesus' call for justice to the poor and oppressed, liberals often tend to downplay His teachings on morality and holiness. This involves several fallacious leaps in logic. Some of the more common assertions include:

1. Jesus did not specifically refer to moral issues such as abortion and homosexuality, therefore He must have been indifferent, if not approving of them.

2. Jesus taught us to be peacemakers and to "turn the other cheek", therefore He was a milquetoast pacifist who advocated peace at any cost and never condoned force or confrontation.

3. Jesus taught compassion for the poor, therefore He was militantly opposed to money, lived as a homeless beggar and indiscriminately condemned anyone who was wealthy.

All of these statements are in total contrast to the Biblical Jesus. In order to understand the world through Jesus' eyes, we must first understand the world view He followed: Jesus was a devout, Torah observant Jew who believed and cherished the Old Testament and its ordinances. Although much so called "modern scholarship" has attempted to divorce Him from this, everything Jesus taught was based on, and consistent with, the 4000 years of Old Testament teaching that paved the way for Him (Matthew 5:17).

In light of this, Jesus would have wholeheartedly affirmed the Law's decree that homosexuality is indeed a horrendous sin (Leviticus 18:22). In perfect harmony with God's Law, Jesus taught that the only legitimate ****** activity is between a man and a woman within the confines of marriage (Mark 10:6-9). Similarly, He would have echoed the words of the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, who said that God formed them in their mothers' wombs (Isaiah 44:2, 24; 49:1-5, Jeremiah 1:5). Compare this to the commandment to "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those who are perishing" (Proverbs 31:8, NLT). In light of this, the notion that Jesus would have advocated abortion is blasphemous.

Modern society has often painted Jesus as a very "soft," even effeminate persona. It is certainly true that Jesus teaches us to be followers of peace and to turn the other cheek when we are reviled or insulted (Matthew 5:9, 38-39). However, being a peacemaker is not necessarily the same as being a pacifist. Keep in mind that this is the same Jesus who specifically instructed His followers to buy a sword ( Luke 22:36). In one of His parables, He portrays Himself as a landowner who imposes the death penalty on an unjust servant ( Luke 19:12-27). When He encountered a Roman military leader (Matthew 8:5-10), Jesus did not rebuke him in the least for his military occupation. Instead, He commends the soldier for his great faith, a faith so strong and pure that it put all of Israel to shame. In all of these areas, Jesus' teachings would be considered quite conservative by modern terms.

However, this hardly makes Jesus a right wing Republican. We cannot ignore the fact that a core element of Jesus' teachings was compassion for the needy. Jesus strongly taught that with material blessing comes responsibility, and that our use of it was an indicator of the genuineness of our faith: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:21). One of these responsibilities is that we give generously to the poor and needy (Matthew 5:42; Luke 3:11; 14:12-14). These wonderful teachings have inspired the founding of countless charities, hospitals and homeless shelters. In fact, we ignore them at our own peril: "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire...For I was hungry, and ye fed me not...In as much as you did not do it for the least of these, you did it not for me..." (Matthew 25:41-46).

Unfortunately, this solemn warning is totally ignored by many conservatives. Even in raising legitimate concerns over abuse in the welfare system, these concerns are often wrapped in rhetoric that is hardly consistent with the character of Jesus. An example would be the following from popular conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh:

The poor and lower classes in this country have gotten a free ride since the Great Depression when it became noble to be poor...The poor in this country are the biggest piglets at the mother pig and her nipples...I don't have compassion for the poor...Encourage them to be economically equal members of this society, rather than a collection of sycophants sidling up to the pig and looking for the biggest nipple they can find.

It is often said that "Rush is Right," and on many issues, he may very well be. However, he would also do well to heed the solemn warning of Proverbs 17:5: "Whosoever mocks the poor insults his Maker..."

Does this mean that Jesus would advocate the socialistic, class warfare approach of the political left? Not at all. Anything Jesus taught was totally consistent with the Laws which God had already established, including the Laws against theft, envy and covetousness (Exodus 20:15, 17). These things are soul-destroying sins in their own right (1 Corinthians 6:10; Ephesians 5:5). As we will see, the biblical world view requires us to look at these complex issues in a different light.

It has been said that if a person were drowning, a conservative would throw a rope half way out, and say "OK, I've done my part, now you have to swim the rest of the way." On the other hand, a liberal would throw the line all the way out, but then drop his end. Either way, the man likely drowns. This is what sets the Bible apart from conventional viewpoints. It is about helping the whole person, not just distributing handouts. Unless charity is done in conjunction with the Gospel, we are simply giving the person a full stomach, then sending them out on their way to a hopeless future.

 

[Ignatowski 5,000+ posts]

DONT MATTER HOW MUCH U PAY no device is gonna change your small pecker Faulkton

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

human beings are simultaneously selfish and giving. even in our givingness, we do it out of self need to feel good about one's self. selfishness is neccesary to survival....and so is giving. we've tried to split an unsplittable conundrum into 2 political parts.

 

[memphisguy87 10+ year member]

It will never work.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

We really need to do something before its to late, things are starting to get out of hand. It seems like people dont even care about the environment anymore and soon the earth wont even be livable.

wow. someone really is drinking the koolaid. humans acount for a fraction of 1% of global warming. we could go back to the stone age and not make a difference. now our drinking water is another story. we don't take care of ground/surface water very well in some places

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

So, that says that if a smart car collides with another "death trap car" of equal size, it will do pretty well. I will keep that in mind if I ever ride a go-kart through the streets of D.C.
How about this article? From the NY Times of all people. We all know they are B.O. nuthuggers and they even know better than to try and tell us that those little plastic cars are safe.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/small-cars-rate-poorly-in-new-crash-tests/

Not so wrong after all.

Barry can keep his hybrid death traps. With the sheer amount of vehicles on the highways and the idiots behind the wheels of them, I will keep my Expedition and F-250. When the dust settles after a head on with a Prius, my wife and kids will walk away from it. At least that little box car can double as a casket for the dummy driving it. It's sad that the hippies and our politicians with hidden agendas care more about some UNPROVEN global warming hoopla than they do the safety of the American people.

ill pass, what i get from that is, its safe against another smart car or any car of equal size, what happens if a bigger vehicle hits it? people are dumb. i will never resort to this. I will ride my dirt bike, and use my gas powered weed whacker and lawn mower and drive my big suv. Im not gonna be here for very long so im gonna have fun while i am here.

Hey there a lot of cars about the size of a smart car.. like most slant eye imports. If you hit a honda, hyundai or toyota you'd probably be just fine.