Geeto67

It is hilarious to watch team republicans turn into babbling piles of excuses and hypocrisy when faced with their own version of a "Hillary Email Scandal". I am really enjoying all the "I don't really care" and "its not a big deal" excuses now that the left is yelling "Lock him up". Republican tears are the best kind of salty. The fact that you had to comment on it when nobody else was talking about it immediately in this thread means you give a shit. Stop pretending like you don't, you want to talk about this. We could discuss the modern political ethics of process and the "doing wrong to do right" paradox, but you don't really want to discuss political ethics, do you? you just want to make a comparative moral judgement that says "trump is bad, but everyone is bad so who cares" because you want to be able to sleep at night. Moral Relativism does not absolve an act of being unethical - and, If you are a believer in the (ohio native son and Harvard Political Scientist) Dennis Thompson school of political ethics, you are not absolved of the politicians bad behavior if you do not hold the unethical politician responsible for his actions.

Then be clearer. I read this: And all I hear is you inferring that this is always going to be the logical outcome, that we shouldn't even try, and that there is no value. It's a very cynical outlook, and honestly it's worthless to the conversation. Everyone here agrees that the cost of care is the issue, and supporting that care can incur crippling debt to a lot of families. To try and solve this problem by denying treatment is the tail wagging the dog, It may partially solve short term problems but at much greater long term costs that don't always justify the decision.

I have two friends that are seasonal rubber tramps living out of teardrop campers 9 months out of the year. I also have another friend who lives year round in a vintage camper parked on a Brooklyn street outside her upholstery shop. I have slept many times in teardrops and when I was a kid my family had one for a short while, but mostly we tent camped because it's hard to pull a tear drop on a soft beach. Here are my thoughts: Having lived without anything more than a 1 car garage for most of my adult life, to me the best camper is someone else's camper I can borrow. If it is hitched to a car and the tags are up to date, there isn't much people can say about parking one on the street in front of your house - normal rules apply. If you have a driveway or back yard you can usually set one up in the back of your driveway under a cover or in your backyard similar to a non-permanent shed (if your HOA allows such a thing). the nice thing about small campers is they don't attract a lot of attention so you can get away with stuff a bigger camper couldn't. In terms of resale - depreciation on new teardrops is terrible. You can get new ones really cheap, built on like motorcycle trailer frames, but you get what you pay for there. On average a new one will be like $6-$20K for one depending on the options you want, and usually you can find a used one on the market for half that. Vintage teardrops do hold their value ok, but often with cheaper ones you end up having to do a whole redecoration. If I were going to buy one now, this is one I would buy because it has damn near everything I want: https://dayton.craigslist.org/rvs/6204922282.html It's not really roughing it, but if it were just me on the road it would be a bedroll and a tent strapped to the back of a motorcycle. I have a wife and a kid that don't like roughing it as much and for them having a kitchen, portable bathroom, and electrics compatible with campground hookups is ideal. Just remember, the more amenities you have the more chores you have as well to keep them operating. As far as getting around at the track, you can get pitbike and minibike racks for the teardrop trailers. Some even have roof racks with built in bicycle racks. something like this will get one of you around any campground as good as a golf kart: http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=2229040&type=product&WT.ac=YMAL-2229040&WT.z_pg_ref=prd1429761

technically speaking nobody can be fixed. On a long enough time line life expectancy of humans drops to zero. "fucked" is a moving target. The Flu 100 years ago was a quasi death sentence, 60 years ago polio was a death or paralysis sentence, 30 years ago AIDS was a death sentence. The problem isn't providing care to people who are eventually going to die (because we are all going to die at some point), the problem is paying for it and having it be more expensive than other countries that have figured out their healthcare better than us. Mallard is right, medical advancement needs these people to be treated because they provide test cases for study and experimental treatments, but also the families need these people because it improves their quality of life. It just doesn't need to cost so much money. but please by all means, go down to the local cancer ward and go look a bunch of families in the eye and tell them they are wasting money by keeping their mom/dad/child/grandparent/sibling/etc...alive. Go tell them their loved one can't be fixed and they are delaying the inevitable. Do it, I'll wait.

I agree, a pure free market of any kind or stripe is doomed. You may see it in small sectors where limited conditions might allow it but as a whole national economy - it won't work. The leader in quasi free market economies at the moment is China with their Socialist Market Economy. It is predominantly socialist but with some western mixed market and capitalist techniques and elements mixed in to make up for shortfalls in pure market socialism. Much like the Western World and mixed market capitalism a lot of the pinch points are where political ideology and economic ideology intersect. Thank you for proving my point by being your usual extremest self. In case you missed it: my point was that the healthcare issue is intertwined with other issues in this country and it is full of people with diverse opinions some of whom are obstinate and not committed to the open mindedness problem solving requires. People like you. Once you remove something from the table as a possible contributor (as you have) you are no longer interested in exploring all options or maximizing the benefit to Americans. There is a potential that "addressing it properly" might include 2A, but you'll never know because you refuse to have that discussion (and the NRA continues to block research in this area). People do for the most part, but we don't have a good system for basic minimum standard of care in this country yet. That's what a lot of this is looking to solve, and we are not there yet, but we are moving forward and that's progress. I am glad you agree that we need both basic care and then leave it up to people to take it further, now we just need to define basic care, figure out how to pay for it, and figure out a way to educate everyone on it.

Old news. My vote is with shrieking Joe the "Saginaw psychopath":

Ti is a terrible material to make wheels out of, it isn't lighter than aluminum in many cases, just more corrosion resistant and slightly stronger (at the cost of being less malleable). Ti lug nuts on the other hand are cheaper than I expected them to be: http://www.tikore.com/

because fun. remember fun? it's what we used to have with cars before everything had to be triple black, carbon fiber, and matte aluminum. also everything was removable so....yeah....not ruined and betcha it was fun. In real life that car attracts all the blowjobs.

at some point we should talk about how the "self made bootstraps" mantra was created by Ben Franklin to sell his books and is complete bullshit. Ben Franklin, as great as he was, pulled himself up by his bootstraps by forgetting the sacrifices of his parents on his behalf and passing their massive financial burden in later years on to his sister. http://www.wnyc.org/series/busted-americas-poverty-myths

you understand the ACA is not a "socialist" construct right? It's a regulated capitalist market. Also, you know "Free market" can be both capitalist or socialist, it depends on the conditions of the market itself, not the political conditions. There are some that believe that a "free market" cannot exist within capitalism because of it's naturally exploitative nature. What you call "free Market" is really just Adam Smith's theory on Free markets (he isn't the only one but he's popular among republicans), and what you know about socialist markets is the Lange model because it advocates state ownership and republicans love to rail against big government ownership (it's a convenient enemy). If you really think about it in theory, a socialist free market makes the most sense - everyone has an equal share so every one has equal incentive to act fairly. Rand Paul was right about one thing - consumers are divorced from the product. But linking them directly to the product doesn't cure that, they are still mostly unsophisticated to make decisions concerning quality of care. That isn't going to change by making them buy stuff directly. you know this is not a universal truth right? It's just Adam Smith's theories (you have read Adam Smith, right?). Where your argument that free market is always better than a regulated one because the cost of low prices drives costs down which means it favors cheap foreign labor. Walmart is living proof of that. in Practice a free market will not protect American manufacturing or the American worker. That is the inherent cost of "competition" This is largely bullshit because other countries have shown it to be bullshit. Still the patent process protects medical innovation more than how people pay for care ever could hope to do, plus with more people receiving healthcare, the increase in volume can partially offset the loss in profits that comes with a regulated price. You want to know what affects medical innovation more than the price of the drugs? government grants. Republican politicians cutting funding for scientific study for a variety of non-scientific reasons (not just religious/moral, but political as well - see my previous post about npr's story on the shrimp study). 100% agree, but a lot of this is in areas not related to healthcare. Everything from employment laws, environmental laws, Food and drug laws, to gun law touches these areas. Are you willing to give up a small piece of your 2nd amendment rights if it meant the treatment for gunshot wounds decreased in cost? the struggle is real. I don't say everyone should have equal care. A basic minimum essential care is necessary to a quality of life improvement. if you want more care (like a personal athletic trainer, nutritionist, or cosmetic surgery) by all means pay for it out of pocket. your complaint about two people getting the same cost and treatment is just the insurance model and how it works in a free market or capitalist market or any market. All insurance uses the model of taking the money for the most profitable clients and using to to pay for the least profitable ones. In an unregulated market the insurance company just cherry picks the most profitable and leaves the rest behind, in a regulated market an insurer is required to insure a large swath of people. Before the ACA, the insurance companies were allowed to act more aggressively toward their patients to make them more profitable and dump them when less, post ACA they don't have that option. this isn't a socialist argument or a lowest common denominator argument - you just don't seem to know how basic concepts of insurance works: the fit woman pays for the 450lb woman, and it does that in almost every market (except free). overall I am not even advocating the same cost, just the same coverage and at a level where people can afford it. If that is through subsidies or regulated markets, I don't care. My insurer gives me incentives for certain "wellness" activities and it works, and it is more money for people who smoke and drink at a level where people can afford it. And that's ok. But for the people that can't, how about some basics care? if you want to fall down the rabbit hole of ACA's economics, here is a good start: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/obamacare-health-reform-insurance-economics/500348/ I agree preventative medicine is a primary goal, and the government should invest in that as well, and in the long run an overall healthier population means a lower healthcare cost. But what's wrong with making sure everyone can get treatment for basic things now like broken bones and malnutrition?

way to keep it classy. And here I thought our mutual love of E30 BMWs would unite us!!!! no skin off my nose - I have no problem if those with neither a taste for facts nor an appetite for discussion want to exclude themselves from the burden of either. Literally anything can run it better than the free market. Wanna know why? because there are many many many situations in healthcare where what's best for the individual patient, what's best for society, and what's best for the insurance company are at irreconcilable odds. In a free market for profit situation the insurance company always wins and usually at the cost of the provider and the patient. It's kinda how we got into this mess in the first place. The only way the free market model would work is if every insurance company was required to be a 501©(3) not for profit charity. This would then remove the incentive to decide matters of profit v. quality in favor of profit and allow alternate revenue streams into the business model. I am not saying the government is good at running things, but the free market model doesn't work for healthcare at all where the overarching goal should be quality of care and not value of care.

eh...... Obamacare is problematic, but it's still better than RandCare, what was in place before, ANY plan the GOP has proposed since, and basically anything else going right now. To call it "garbage" is to call all American Healthcare garbage. The expanded coverage isn't the only thing that supporters tout. It may be the only thing you are hearing because it is the loudest issue with any replacement, but.... - The ACA put in other consumer protections such as protection for rate hikes from contracting an "expensive illness", protection from being dropped due to any clerical error in the forms, a speedier appeals process. Insurance companies can no longer put dollar limits on essential care items. - tax credits for small businesses - your children can stay under your coverage until 26. Prior to this it was 19 years old but could be extended to 23 if the child was enrolled in college. This addresses a large portion of young adults who don't typically have the types of jobs that include health coverage (i.e. entry level) and can't afford traditional private health insurance. In terms of people you want paying into the system these are ideal because young people rarely get sick and therefore pay in more than they use. Before they were just outside the system not contributing. - It slowed health care spending. Nobody talks about the cost curbing measures in the ACA but they have slowed the spending increase to the smallest amount since 1960. everyone is talking about the coverage and the loss of coverage because that is a house burning down kind of issue, but it is simply not true that supporter's only tout one benefit - it is just that the other benefits are less controversial and therefore not talked about as much. Obamacare's biggest problem is cost, it is a very expensive program for the government, the insurance companies, and for some segment of the population (too rich to be poor, but too poor to afford anything including the penalty). Don't separate this out from the GOP and make it seem like it was all Trump. The GOP mislead him and he went along with it and then when they won unexpectedly they got caught in a lie. The Republican party has to own this as much as Trump. Republicans lied to America. Let's talk about a Healthcare as a political talking point for a second. The traditional positions prior to the ACA were: - Healthcare is a national social issue and the government should oversee it at a national level with minimum standard care for all (the canada model and the democratic position). - Healthcare is a complex social issue and should be managed at the state level. The Federal government should assist with subsidies but otherwise leave it up to the states to figure out what it's people need (the Romney model and the Republican mainstream social position) and regulate coverage and protection issues. After the ACA, there came a third position: - Heathcare is best served by the free market, regardless of the short term social negatives to people requiring care. Because it is really popular with Americans that it be regulated at the national level we will continue to do so but will will just unrestricted the insurance companies and hope that competition will make them do the right thing in a for profit model (the Trump/tea party position, It is not a "libertarian" position because it keeps a lot of other regulations in place - think of it more as an insurance company economic easing). Anything the current administration is putting forward right now is in this third camp, and it's all pretty shitty. It's worse than the other two positions. I do believe there are areas where the "Free market" is beneficial (space exploration for example), but healthcare isn't one of them - it incentivizes poor behavior on the part of the insurance companies.

how about romneycare? oh wait..... Randcare is garbage and you know it.

Joe Scarborough making a lot of sense: The GOP isn't going to do anything about Trump. They need to pay a price for their opportunism in the form of their supporters walking away from the party and becoming independents. Unfortunately there are too many people who think politics are a team sport and they need to stick with their team. Fuck "Mayonnaise" Mike Pence. Being an evangical bigot who knows how to play the politics game doesn't make you better than what we have in trump.

the viper 1 of 1 program. you could order a viper any way you wanted and it would be the only one that way. There was no guarantee of paint color exclusivity, just that there would be no two cars spec'd the same through the program. When you picked your colors they sent you a painted form sample for you to approve. When you approved they would then send you a custom painted finished "speed form" to display on your mantle. you also got 2 "1 of 1" badges - one on the car and one blank to do god knows what with. http://www.drivesrt.com/2015/viper/1of1/

It's a long shot but thought I might take a stab here. The circuit board in my '95 wrangler's instruments has corroded and replacements are NLA. Looking to see if someone has the speedo/tach setup from a YJ that they are willing to sell - I just need the circuit board, but nobody wants to break these up so looking for a parts set I can rob the circuit board off of. Anybody have they want to part with?

are you looking for something custom? or do you just want to fix a ripped cover? you might be better served ordering a DIY kit from a place like https://www.leatherseats.com/home/ and just recovering the seat yourself. I did a seat in my GTO years ago with hog ring pliers and it wasn't difficult at all, the new stuff usually just slips over and secures with Velcro. Leatherseats.com offers new covers for 2005-2011 vettes, I don't know what year you have.

that's what wraps are for. I am just bummed that the black cars don't come with a gold stripe and gold wheels option. The '66 heritage edition comes kinda close with the gold wheels and silver stripe and #2 meatball of the Ken Miles/Denny Hulme 1966 lemans winning MKII GT40, but it doesn't look right for some reason. I saw those same photos of a white car and they turned up the contrast in PS which takes the detail out of the car. I think it would look great in person in white with orange and red stripes. I think the white is actually a matte white which is also hard to photograph.

from the ad: " Car is NOT cleared i keep car oiled with lubricant to prevent rusting." I feel like "oil up my Cadillac with lubricant" should be a euphemism for something....

here is the whole kit laid out: by the way, the stripes are a decal so if you want a car stripe delete you just peel it off or don't put it on when you place the order. you can see the separate stripes here: http://newsfeatures.autotrader.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Studio-Session-Ford-GT-160.jpg for us poors that can't afford a slightly less than half a mil supercar we can play with the online config: https://www.ford.com/performance/gt/ I wonder how long before we see one of these owner's box's up on ebay?

Clay....that gif made my day. Dirty Politics is dirty politics, they all play this game to a degree and honestly the only thing that really sucks is just how shockingly bad at it DT really is at playing the game, and look at how little the world supports him.

bonus car... 1955 Chevy AFX altered wheelbase gasser: https://louisville.craigslist.org/cto/6214251244.html

today's freak: https://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/6213554720.html This is a Shala-Maro. It was designed and sold as a kit by Dick Dean in the 1970's to be built off a VW beetle chassis. The whole point of this car and it's sister car the Shala-vette was so that people could drive a real life cartoon car they they saw in Car-toons magazine: The story of Dick Dean is fascinating in his own right since he is know for having designed and built the bodies for famous streamliners goldernrod and challenger I, as well as the cars for Death Race 2000 (frankenstien's car is a modified Shala-vette), the original Ecto-1, the munsters' coach, and collaborated with Dean Jefferies on the Monkee mobile and the Black Beauty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Dean how's that for a street freak clay?

So I have to say, the LED F1 style progressive shift lights in the top of the steering wheel is just a really simple, thoughtful detail. It's one of those things that probably wasn't hard to do and isn't really high tech, but is just really neat.

gas powered golf cart is only one motorcycle engine away.