Geeto67

12 seconds, not bad. Neat little car

You are using a very small extreme group to represent the whole again. *generally* this doesn't happen, it does happen but it is not mainstream and is infrequent - usually requiring a tragic event to even provide any volume or attention. You are just too quick to lump everybody on the other side together then whine like a little girl with a skinned knee when someone does it to you. The only irony here is that you call anyone a hypocrite. Whatever your youthful insecurities need to keep you going man, how you feel about yourself doesn't impact my life one way or the other.

It's an interesting read on the political division in this country, how it exists on both sides of the aisle historically, and how this is more a product of mental instability than political riling. Since your pattern of posting this type of stuff is usually to say "look at the mean liberals attacking us violently" I thought this provided some needed perspective. I don't advocate violence ever, including those against whom I disagree with politically. We have a political system and either you have faith in that system, in america, or you don't. Violence like this is unwarranted, unnecessary, and a tragedy. So far nobody has died as a result, and I am thankful for that. I don't know what else you want to discuss about it. edit: and boom there it is - you couldn't help yourself could you No he was mentally unstable, period. This time he happens to be liberal, next time the next one may be conservative. Neither party has an exclusivity with mental illness. But that doesn't fit your conservative moral superiority where you look at all liberalism as only extreme and a some form of mental illness. you think it is weak because it doesn't confirm your bias of violence being a liberal phenomenon and this being a result of political agitation. How can you ever feel superior to liberals if your own are equally susceptible?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/06/15/steve-scalise-shooting-liberal-conservative-vitriol-blame/396731001/

My favorite concept car of all time is the 1964 Pontiac banshee. Not because it was anything special, it was but not compared to modern concepts, but because it was a project of john Deloren, it predicted the corvette c3 styling, and it was envisioned as an English type sports car capable of beating jags XKE in the dawning age of the muscle car. As a Pontiac and corvette fan it ticks all my boxes. http://www.conceptcarz.com/images/Pontiac/64-Pontaic-Banshee-Concept-DV-10-RMA_05.jpg I keep dreaming one of these days I am going to find a project 73-77 corvette, find an old motion fastback rear window kit, swap in my sprint 230ci OHC-6 Pontiac engine out of my old tempest, and rebadge the car as a Pontiac banshee. Rolling on Pontiac rally wheels with red lines and looking like a production car will probably cause more than a few head scratches.

The Chrysler turbine car is a really interesting car and worth discussing, mostly because it came so close to production and then didn't. The actual production body of the turbine is the 1966-67 Dodge Charger fastback. Although the original 63 body was good looking by 1964 it was a dated design, having given up its turbine like headlight styling to the dodge Polara (itself borrowed from earlier iterations of the dart). Overheating wasn't the issue so much as the engine produced a ton of nitrate emissions and consumed fuel at twice the rate of a comparable ICE engine. The real advantage was an almost 0 maintenance schedule since a turbine has many fewer moving pieces and the oil never gets contaminated.

Have you actually been to college? because this is awfully cynical and so oversimplifying you miss the fine print. The policy does as much real good for the victim as it can within the private institution structure. These were lessons learned in the 80's-2000's by institutions with their policies toward women. Take something like a rape for example - without a policy the institution doesn't have to take any action and in fact is bound to let the victim and the alleged rapist still continue to attend classes, even if they are in the same class. If there was legal action involved in this pre-policy period often the victim was removed, not the accused, because they were the one who initiated the legal action. Again, attendance at a university is contractual and if there is no policy incorporated into the terms of the contract that has been violated, the university can't interfere with the accused rapist from attending classes. In some cases they could prevent the victim because suspension because of being a claimant in legal action adverse to the university may have been a policy in place at the time. Why not the accused? because without a specific policy addressing the behavior they had to wait for a conviction. Now in practical application they would just try to find something else in the code of conduct or something but it was inconsistent and didn't always carry the same penalty. Post Policy The university can review the action without waiting and make a decision in the best interests of the affected students (the accused and the victim,) the student body as a whole, and itself. And it can do it consistently so the victims feel less jerked around or marginalized and the institution is less suspect of being corrupt. It's literally a best case scenario for everyone post event within the existing framework. your point, didn't go over my head, it's just irrelevant. You are making the argument that colleges shouldn't have these policies because people should protect themselves? Ok, how about colleges have these policies AND people protect themselves? no? why not? yeah don't care. This is nonsense. It's really easy to say "when I have a kid I'm gonna..." wait till you actually have a kid - you have no idea what you are in for. And if you are ragging on universities calling themselves Safe Space institutions because of these LGBT policies then yes you are saying don't put these policies in place. Safe Space started with the women's movement and there was a legal obligation to back it up - there aren't legal protections for LGBT people so the fact that universities are being applying the same standard is very progressive. Remember this is all different from the "safe space" related to mental health therapy which is also being applied at colleges in limited capacity. Don't confuse the two.

Everyone is "triggered" by something. Not all of it is racially, gender, or LGBT motivated. But we all have something that pisses us off, depresses us, makes us feel anxious, etc. To deny that is to deny humanity, it is human nature with almost no exceptions (serial killers are maybe the exception. maybe). Maybe you have taught them a better coping mechanism than some others, who knows - but to think they aren't going to be susceptible to their emotions? yeah good luck with that. Still don't see anything wrong with providing those who want it with help. Wanting help doesn't make you weak or a wuss or inferior. But I don't expect conservative people to understand or be compassionate about mental illness, psychology, or therapy - for over 60 years they have been treating it politically like a form of communism.

Clearly you do, if colleges weren't being accommodating on this issue I doubt you would have this vocal an opinion about it. we have talked about those before. Physical "safe spaces" and the alternative therapies that go with them come from psychological treatment and have had their best success in treating veterans for PTSD and other combat related psychological trauma. College are self contained communities that have a variety of their own issues to deal with, including a variety of psychological ones that lead to an above average suicide rate. I am not comparing student trauma to combat trauma, but what's wrong with using something that works for veterans for other groups that might also be served by the same treatment? because you think it is going to make them sissies? because it doesn't sound tough? Either way it still isn't the same "safe space" we are talking about when an institution declares itself a "safe space" by enacting policies to address inequality. And that point is what exactly? that safe space sounds weak and not macho and therefore private citizens should reject it and institutions should shun it at the cost of enabling discrimination? wow. just wow. you literally have no idea how law and policy works. Let's break it down: Our entire system of laws is predicated in part, but not whole, on deterrence through punishment. Another part is more of a credit system regarding harm to society involving money and time, another is about being consistent about the approach to a problem, and yet another is more about enabling certain people/groups/institutions to take action against specific action in the first place and not leaving it up to interpretation from a broader policy/law. There are a certain number of people that a harsh punishment attached to a law deters from committing the crime. It doesn't stop everyone, but it does stop some. Is it a good system? I don't know but it works to some extent and until someone comes up with something better - it is what we have. when it comes to the policy of a private institution, they are free to enact anything they like within the boundaries of those laws, and most follow the same pattern. So if it doesn't fully deter, then why the more narrow policy? Well in the past colleges would normally have a broad policy that takes action against students that have broken a law, with some discretion to the type of law broken. Speeding tickets? they ignore. The occasional fight? probably probation. Theft, destruction of property, sexual assault? usually expulsion. They also had policies for behavior that wasn't illegal per se such as drinking on campus (even if you are over 21) and not paying your bill. In the case of policies that relied on law, usually there had to be a conviction to take ultimate action - accusation wasn't enough to do anything other than temporary if at all. By enacting policies above and beyond the law, the university can take action without a conviction. Remember, attendance at a university is contractual. The university cannot break it's contract with a student unless there is a violation of the university policies which are incorporated as terms of the contract. If there is no policy, then there is nothing by which the contract can be broken. When you look back at the history of LGBT and it's treatment by institutions there generally weren't any policies that would separate it out from other things like the random fight or sexual assault. This lead to a very inconsistent enforcement policy and a lot of abuse in the system that sometimes even negatively affected the victim. Additionally, as the same "crimes" motivated by racial or gender difference became elevated to hate crime, the inconsistency widened and started to send the signal that LGBT people were considered a lesser group by the institution. A private university is a corporation, and like every other corporation it's policies protect the institution first and foremost. Having a policy that restores consistency to acts committed against LGBT people means that the institution reduces it's civil legal exposure, and elevating that policy to the same treatment as racially or gender motivated acts, means it avoids sending the wrong signal and the negative PR that usually accompanies that. I don't mean to make it sound like the university is completely self serving - how does it protect the students? by offering at least a predictable and consistent institutional approach that gives them a baseline from which to work off of so they can take further action to protect themselves. Also the policy means it is more attractive for a greater diversity of students to attend the school and the student body benefits from overall diversity of experience as well as a consistent approach to education. The overall goal of the policy isn't to prevent everyone from committing the prohibited action, but it takes out some of the uncertainty in how it will be dealt with should it happen and keeps the university from being sued from allowing something like this to happen without exhausting it's preventative options. understand?

Everyone should tell him to take a hike. There is nothing I can think of wanting to hear less than an opinion on colleges and tolerance from a guy who never went to college (carolla) and an open anti-arab bigot who thinks white privilege is a myth because white men commit suicide more often (prager).

yeah because that's the only way you seem to think people react to this intentionally offensive nonsense. :dumb: 1) For someone whose mantra seems to be all about personal liberty, I am always surprised you have an very restrictive opinion on what a private, non governmental, institutions can do. You don't like what a private college is doing? great - don't attend. It isn't like you don't have a choice. 2) I don't know why but I always imagine you thinking a safe space is a physical room people can hide away from other in. Maybe it is because you talk about it that way. And while those do exist in a completely different context, All a "Safe Space" is in the context of a collegiate institution is a policy that doesn't tolerate harassment or violence against women, minorities, and LGBT students. Considering that harassment and violence against women and minorities are covered by hate crime laws but LGBT is not, the safe space policies benefit the LGBT community the most. In practice, you can privately hate gay people all you want, you can think whatever you want about LGBT lifestyle, but you can't walk around campus calling the kid in eyeshadow "faggot" and then beat the shit out of him on Saturday night after you get drunk. You know, how these things used to go down years ago. You can bitch and moan and whine that you think people are going to be too soft without dipshit jocks walking around calling them queers, and faggots, but honestly that's just stupid. We shouldn't need anti-harassment/violence policies against LGBT people because generally people should try not to be assholes to other people...but here we are. To put it simply - to be against "safe spaces" you are anti-personal liberty and anti-LGBT. If you are ok with then then fine, so be it. Safe spaces (as I am sure you are thinking about it - the room kind) already exist in the military - they are part of psychological treatment usually associated with PTSD. As for Military policies against harassment and violence...well you have to solve the rape problem in the military first - that is of course unless you like rape.

Bump - today

It georgeous, and literally what I would want but ,I just can't justify it right now. I wasn't going to seriously look at one till the end of this year, and I don't think this car is going to wait that long.

so can I bitch for a second? I don't get this "Its just a focus" or "just an "impreza" kind of logic. It is a longstanding practice for manufacturers to base their high performance models off of some of the more cheaper, standard cars. This is nothing new. The selling price of my GTO new in 1967 was $3050 (if it had been fully optioned it would have been close to $4500), this is over the base price of the bottom barrel tempest which was $2483 msrp. And let's be honest the GTO is a crude car - it isn't like I was getting a technologically advanced fuel efficient small displacement engine that makes it's emissions smell like unicorn farts, the GTO was about as sophisticated as a sharpened rock. The high price of "options" on base cars was what led to the Judge and Roadrunner as "low cost" alternatives that could then be further optioned up. I am sure there were those people that at the time said $3050!!!I'm not paying that for a tarted up tempest, and you know what? I'm really glad those people were wrong because muscle cars like my GTO, and not a 4 door tempest sedan, is why we remember cars from the 60's in the first place. In 20 years we will all be remembering how good the STI was and the RS and nobody is gonna remember fondly driving a naturally aspirated impreza with a cvt. Are there more comfortable things you could buy new for $40K? sure. More performance oriented? sure, AWD? why not, more useful? absolutely. But for the money could you get a car that was better at 2 or 3 of those things than a Focus RS or an STI? doubtful, and if it was better at those two it would be way worse at whatever is left on the table. The Focus RS is awesome, the STI is awesome, modern performance cars are just plain awesome. The world is a better place for having them. /rant.

http://jalopnik.com/the-2018-ford-focus-rs-costs-5-000-more-but-heres-why-1795965874 Was kind of surprised to read that the Focus RS in the US will be basically a 2 year only unicorn. I wonder how many 2018's they will sell? Also why didn't the 2017's come with an LSD?

1971 Chevrolet Nova/El Camino https://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/6154779371.html I imagine you have to be kinda short to drive this

To be fair the end of Long Island (North and South Fork) sands their roads, they don't road salt them like we do here in ohio. the bigger concern for a car like that is the extremely salty ocean air that corrodes literally everything left outside. This is how my 1967 Buick GS340 ended up looking like this with only 56K on the clock: http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f102/Geeto67/BuickFront.jpg It sat outside in Dad's Montauk driveway for roughly 3 years. It was a fairly solid car when I parked it, it was rusty when I sold it. Then a tree fell on it. Back in the 1990's I used to work for a shop that specialized in old corvettes. The boss used to flip old cars constantly as well and as the low guy on the totem pole I was the guy who went with him to make deals and pick up cars. most of them were word of mouth finds since nobody really used the internet like they do now. That old legend of guys not returning from Vietnam and their parents still having their cars - must have seen and heard it about a dozen times. The saddest one was an old widow in center island whom we picked up a 1970 Challenger T/A from, she broke down in a sobbing hysterical pile in the driveway when we winched the car out. Reminded me of the old women at Italian funerals who used to throw themselves on the coffin as it was being lowered. Other car gems from that time were A '63 split window fuelie that was covered in about 100 cans of housepaint in a one car garage - not the paint itself, every time they repainted the house they would stack the empty and leftover cans on the car (not under a cover) and they must have repainted that house 10 times. Also a SS L79 '67 Nova parked on a lawn in College point for 20 years that broke in half when we were winching it up on the truck. During that time I tried to do what he was doing - I would buy lesser muscle cars, clean them a little, and sell them. I had a 1977 Trans Am SE (what people call a "bandit edition") that I picked up for $600 and sold for $1200. The guy who owned it had a gas station and had done all the metalwork on the car so it was primer from the cowl to the rear bumper - only the nose had any paint on it (black with gold pinstripes and screaming chicken), but it was really sold and the 400 ran but had a lifter that pumped down. I was stoked that I sold it for twice after all I did was wash the bodywork dust off of it and change the fluids. I also had a very rusty 1971 elcamino I picked up for $350 and sold for $800 - but it ran. What used to kill me was the stuff I had to pass on because I was a broke 20 year old kid. I answered an ad for rusty $900 1969 camaro RS 327 car and went out to this storage warehouse in Commack. The guy there was a tow truck driver and would pick up cheap cars when he came across them. Most of his stuff was rusty and beat, but in the center of the floor was this very dusty 1969 GTO 400 Convertible ram air IV car. Silver on black. The paint and body was amazing, the interior was gutted and in boxes, the top frame was down with no canvas. Under the hood was a freshly rebuilt 455 Long Block, no carb, exhaust manifolds or accessories at all. The thing had paperwork for the drive train from Jack Merkel from when he was still running Merkel Racing Engines (Jack did the 302 in Dad's Z/28 so I sort of knew him but not well). The Price? $4K. It might as well have been a kings ransom to me in 1997. I found out later that he had $1500 in the car - he had picked it up from a widow who had sold her house - the car had been sitting 5 years already when he got it. Three weeks later I went to Corona, Queens to look at a 1970 Malibu Convertible. White with Red interior and white top. Supposedly it ran but when I got there the car was in a fenced in field. We were able to get into the lot, but the guy couldn't get the car started. It was a clean, highly optioned car with 60K on the clock and almost no rust, but you could light a match of the white paint. The entire time people would come up to the guy talk for a second and walk away. It took my buddy and I about 5 minutes to figure out he was the local neighborhood dirt merchant and every time he walked away to talk to someone it was another drug deal. HE wanted $2K for the car and I passed. A year and a half later I ran into a guy at muscle car headquarters in Farmingdale telling a similar story. Turns out he saw the car 2 days after me, bought it, got it running (it wouldn't start because water in the gas) and eventually sold it for $5500. He even got the paint to take a shine. I had a lot of fun doing it, but mostly because I was young and it was and adventure and you could still find neat old 60's cars on used car lots from time to time. Flipping bikes....now that is a whole different story.

dude...just admit you are talking out of your ass on this one. Formal education in Europe started in the middle ages (5th-15th centuries) as extensions of churches to teach Latin grammar and literacy, mostly to those who could afford it. By the 1800s they were private institutions, mostly charitable but a few for profit, that taught everybody. In 1870 England made schools part of the state's responsibility and the crown provided the funding for education from that point on. The US, as a colony, inherited most of the European school system of private charitable institutions, mostly funded by religious organizations. However, Massachusetts founded the first state funded school in 1639, and the New England Colonies made school attendance compulsory in 1642. That's not the 1800s. The Arts programs and things that promote creativity weren't added to the national curriculum til 1945, long after the industrial revolution. The modern US school structure is actually older than the US itself. Have they adjusted it to meet the needs of the population over time? yes. Do they continue to adjust? yes. This nonsense about the industrial revolution making schools what they are today is misguided. Prior to the 1880s schools were college preparatory institutions with little practical application. Between 1880 and 1920 education broadened to include practical knowledge (we know this as vocational training now, but it was much less defined back then). In those days, white collar disciplines like accounting, law, financial services did not require college or license and they benefited the most, actual mechanical vocational training wasn't added till around 1910. Also around this time schools developed into social and community centers - Schools always had the children for the majority of the day light hours (9am-4pm in the 1800 for all the days not around harvest season) - but now they were social centers as well as educational ones. The only legacy the industrial revolution had on the american education system is the vocational training program, which is actually kept separate from primary education and does not make up the lion's share of education. what you are talking about is some conspiracy theory bunk that someone pitched to you and you thought sounded reasonable. Anybody with any insight into the inner workings of how education works in this country, or has a child that requires any kind of special attention knows it to be illogical conspiracy bunk.

There were some that used the 13B-RE two rotor from the factory. This is similar to the RX-7 twin turbo engine we got here in the last gen Rx-7. The 20B three rotor is a Cosmos engine only, and was the basis for the 3 rotor mazda used in the Furai concept car.

and they have 2 cappuccinos as well: http://www.duncanimports.com/wholesale-used-inventory/index.htm?search=&compositeType=&bodyStyle=Roadster&saveFacetState=true&lastFacetInteracted=inventory-listing1-facet-anchor-bodyStyle-9 but forget that - they have a Eunos Cosmo Coupe!!!: http://www.duncanimports.com/used/Eunos/1991-Eunos-Cosmo-785b52210a0e08f7667310a44d087194.htm I wonder if it has the triple rotor 20B.

1978 Malibu Nomad Wagon "One of a Kind" https://cincinnati.craigslist.org/cto/6137443931.html

Custom 1958 Ford del Rio ranch wagon https://detroit.craigslist.org/mcb/cto/6165999218.html wait....did he say mid-engined? and had as in no longer has?

in Cbus no less. He even has the same zebra striped floor mats.

you selling the beat? https://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/6135591173.html

this is kind of neat: https://www.manheim.com/publicauctions/vehicleDetail.do?auctionID=OAA&saleDate=20170613&saleYear=2017&saleNumber=24&sortKey=1&sortDirection=asc&consignor=REPO&index=20