Geeto67

it was a joke based on the fact that you and I are probably defining morally liberated differently. And apparently it didn't land so much as crash into the side of a mountain. so your solution is...what....celibacy? Do you really think the old way of sparse dating only people you happen to meet in real life by accident and getting married quickly is somehow better? All the same shit that happens now happened in the old days, and in some cases more frequently back then. The difference is we are getting less miserable about it because people are being less judgemental about it in mainstream society and we are putting more structure in to our kids lives with the non-parental programs. Again, it was just mild ribbing because you and I seem to have completely different definitions of "morally liberated".

I guess it all depends on how you define "morally liberated". Shaming people because they want to live together before getting married is something that can only benefit society by it's absence. Same with shaming divorced people (esp women) and treating single parents as social lepers to the point where they are unemployable (which is something that has happened in our lifetimes and does still happen in some closed communities), It hurts us as a whole and is not going to be missed. I don't think knocking over liquor stores fits that morally liberated category so you should probably tell your friends to stop. Also, everyone has problems, big frickin' whoop. Actions have consequences and you can't escape them, all actions - whether you think they are morally liberated or not. That's a pretty high horse you seem to be ignoring your own problems from, just because you don't have the same ones as your friends...I mean it's not like you are completely abdicating any personally responsibility by continually bating your neighbor with low tones that cause queasiness and equally passive aggressive response letters to his his shitty passive aggressive letters, I mean he brought this on himself right? can't blame you for what happens next - it's not like you have a choice in the matter...

meh...don't care for it. When is FCA gonna wise up and make a v-8 powered wrangler? I don't need 707hp, the 3-sumpthin that a regular 5.7 hemi makes will do fine. Given how pickups are now even gravitating away from the v8 this may be FCA's last chance. The aftermarket has proven there is a need for it. come on mopar, get with the program.

Actually we live in the best age for marriage right now. The divorce rate reached a 40 year low in 2016 while the marriage rate is increasing. Your chances for divorce are still around 50/50 but that isn't a hard rule and depends on a low of factors (the chances of staying together goes up the richer you are for example). https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low/%3Fsource%3Ddam There are other factors that suggest this as well, like the spousal violence murder rate has gone down. People get all nostalgic about the old days when social stigmas forced unhappy to stay together but really as we move toward a more morally liberated society that doesn't condem cohabitation and sex before marriage and a broader way to meet people to date, it is giving marriage a fighting chance. Schools have always raised our kids since this country was founded. Maybe there were more stay at home parents back in the good old days, but families were also larger and individual kids didn't get any more attention. My brother and I grew up in a household where both parents worked 12-14 hour shifts 6 days a week. I still feel raised by them even though they weren't as around as some of my friends parents. My mother was orphaned when she was 16, and raised by her brother, my father's parents both worked 7 days a week 12 hour shifts and was raised by hanging around his cousins that lived in the neighborhood. my grandfather and grandmother were each one of 11 kids in their families during the Great Depression and were raised in the jobs they had to get as kids help their family survive, like hundreds of thousands of others exactly like them in NYC. And don't forget, child abuse as an enforceable crime is really recent, people used to beat the shit out of their kids and often their spouses (and some still do).This notion that the good old days were the nuclear family where mom raised the kids and that is all gone is utter Horseshit. Everybody is different, and only each person can know what's best for themselves and their children in any circumstance. The best we can do is offer our support, kindness, and compassion to those who need us as a community.

These days it is a money thing. You could get into a large discussion about how women generally earn less then men in the work place (if they work at all) and how that affects the settlement and assets in a divorce, but for the time being let's keep is simple: Alimony is the amount you pay to the spouse who is making less money so that they can maintain their standard of living. Child Support is the amount paid to the spouse who is making less money so that the children do not suffer a decrease in their standard of living (at least in the things that money can affect). Oversimplifying math example: If jointly you and your wife earn $150K a year and you get divorced and she earns $50K a year and you earn $100K a year, you will pay your spouse $25K a year in alimony, half of $150K is $75K - you have to make up the difference between her $50K and the $75K she was entitled to when you were married. It isn't intuitive to think so because of how much emotion is tied up in it but think of marriages like businesses bound by contracts. There are employees and roles, and responsibilities, and when the relationship ends those things don't go away, so the assets are usually distributed evenly, and the responsibilities by who had them in the marriage. There used to be, and in some cases it may still cut that way despite laws to the contrary, but it has a lot more to do with the roles people play in a marriage. The courts usually favor the primary caregiver. In a lot of cases this is the stay at home parent, usually wife since stay at home husbands are rare but increasing. As Kirk said before it is always in the best interests of the child and usually that means continuity of care, and usually that is the female in the relationship. yes. Money, child custody, all of it. If you look at marrage like a partnership created by contract, then a prenup is the part of the contract that contains the terms of how the partnership ends

So, I have a few questions - how often do you drive the car? is it a DD? or a weekend toy you use year round? Other than this issue with the tire, have you had any other problems? Every time I see a new challenger I get smitten with how good they look and spend the rest of my day looking at the classifieds, but I've never really heard anybody tell me what it is like owning one. Has the car been a lot of little issues or is it otherwise fine and this is just a major annoyance? despite this, do you still like the car?

For the last several years (about 5) Cbus has been increasing in population. A lot of this was driven by employment growth - Columbus has a well balanced and diverse employment landscape (by diverse I mean a good mix of blue and white collar jobs, not ethnic, gender or racial diversity) so a prop up in one area tends to bring the others along. The speculation is that the professional and business services industry is driving the growth. With those new jobs comes new people into the state that need housing. While there are many rentals around, the for purchase residential market is lagging behind the population growth, meaning if you want to buy a house in this city in a good neighborhood you better be ready to pay and move quickly. What is interesting is that the job market has been outpacing the population growth as well, so there is some speculation the new apartment builds are anticipating population growth catching up to employment growth.

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/cd169f_928bd8328f58452d8b5ded213fdade60.pdf Lots of interesting cars show up, it's a pretty good time for a local show.

Balding? you really don't know what I look like do you? And you internet stalk me so either you are the laziest internet stalker alive, really suck at it, or you have literally run out of things to make fun of me for so now you are just lying. Either way it's sad. Like really sad.

LOL

Crusade is one of those words that GWB kinda ruined for every american president afterwards. It's such a common word, but politically it just stands for a religious conflict and given the current climate I am not surprised anybody is drawing those parallels. so...I go to brietbart's home page and this is the top headline: *puts on tinfoil conspiracy hat considering how focused the POTUS has been on TV ratings, esp of those that are critical of him, I wonder how much influence the White House has on these headlines? It could be that they are just really good at knowing what Trump wants to see....or....they could be getting information and direction from the administration in conflict of existing ethics rules now that we know those rules and things like the emoluments clause have almost no enforcement teeth.

Is this a competition? If it is who is judging and what is the criteria? (and how many points do I have?) Are you just not open to the concept that both viewpoints can be right and wrong on various points because of the distortion of point of view or the omission of facts? The point of political discourse from my perspective is that you explain your point of view, and I explain mine, we agree and dismiss the common ground and then focus on the points where we disagree and discuss to find out why. It seems to me that the point of these discussions for you isn't about listening to another viewpoint or dissecting the difference but as a sounding board for why you are right and we are somehow in competition. I learn a lot from these little chats we have, it's interesting because I am not capable of thinking the way you do - but something tells me you don't get out of it the same thing. I'd say this is a pot and kettle situation but really I don't want to have another conversation with Orion and Mensan about the entomology of that phrase. it's a message board, and honestly this is the discourse that CR supports. Don't like it complain to the mods. You have in the past (maybe not those exact words) and honestly I don't really care. I honestly can't believe you typed this with a straight face: immediately after typing this: this is almost the definition of "moral high ground" but somehow you don't count it because...what...you don't know anybody famous personally? You're cute when you are angry. This is adorable. Weak as wet toilet paper.

nobody likes a sore loser. This is your thread, these are the things you want to discuss...you are really going to get all butt hurt because someone points out something you are actually doing? I thought you were made of stronger stuff. Point to the part of this sentence that is actually about the environment and not just you questioning the integrity of people you don't know: "I wouldn't do what the rich billionaire does because I have integrity and he doesn't" is what this translates to. Do you somehow not agree? Probably because I don't read Breitbart. I only saw this because I read jalopnik and they cross promote articles, and I used to live in Louisiana. Higgins life story is a model for how a fanatical populist nutjob can fail his way into congress.

I'm going to take a page from the BStowers play book and post some highly opinionated polarizing nonsense just to get the conservatives worked into a frothy foam. Look at this Jackass: http://theslot.jezebel.com/us-congressman-instructs-members-of-christendom-to-murd-1795814467 fortunately, most of the media seems to be ignoring this.

I set the question up so that you could calculate it by airline, by person, and by overall efficiency. You chose only to look at it by airline. You are trying to say it is environmentally damaging because it is economically inefficient to have Leo fly private when a seat on an airliner would be available to him, it's a false equivalency. The correct answer is...complicated: overall the Falcon is emitting less than the 737, and per person an underbooked airliner and a private jet can come in about the same on the emissions front. If all the famous people flew the airline there would be no need for private, but it would cost the airline and both airport terminals more money in extra security thus driving up fees in operation, and not really reduce all that much emissions because it isn't like Leo is flying to Dallas twice a day every day of every month for a year. What in the world does being "too good" have to do with it. Some famous people fly private because flying the airlines puts extra strain and cost on the airline and airport facilities with the extra security measures. The last thing you want from a security standpoint is a panic in your terminal because everyone want's leo's autograph. And could you imagine the airplane if he had to sit in coach and everyone wanted to get an autograph? Some fly commercial but have to fly private in some cases because there is not a commercial flight to the city they want to do to. It's not really always about comfort. Could you still say Leo flying commercial was the emissions friendly choice when he has to fly from Dallas to Plattsburg, NY where nearest commercial is 4 hours drive away (or he can take a prop commuter) but the local airport could support his Falcon? The overall point I am trying to make, which went sailing over your head like a falcon and a 737 both bound for Dallas, is that there are many ways to look at the information and draw environmental conclusions. Looking only at one piece and making an overarching declarative statement like you have is very narrow minded...which coming from someone whose common sense can't alert him to when something is white supremacist propaganda is about par for the course. The reason they calculate average per person emissions is that it is a translatable data point. You can look at the average emissions that a person is responsible for across the planes he flies on, the car he drives, the appliances he buys and get a general sense of the overall emissions. Then you can generally target the areas for reductions. Small private jets are always cleaner than a big dirty airliner (which are way cleaner than they used to be), but it is economically in-efficient to have everyone fly private, just as it is economically inefficient to have airline flights operating under capacity. But, and you should know this as an advocate of free markets, the current situation with airlines and private is at it's maximum efficiency given the circumstances (because the market always normalizes), and it would require some outside force like legislation or technological advancement to drive a change. So this isn't about the environment at all, this is just you wanting to shit on people with your moral superiority. Quelle surprise.

Depends on a lot of factors. You can't say something is objectively better or worse without factoring in the data. The problem with the way you phrase it, is that it focuses on one person, which is a stupid way to look at it. If you are looking at per person emissions, the airliner will always look better because it's basically a city bus in the sky - it has lots of people to spread the emissions load over, vs a private jet which at most has a 12 person capacity. Doesn't mean the Airliner isn't a dirtier way to travel, it just means we are moving more people. How about this instead: Leonard DiCaprio takes off off from NY to Dallas Texas using a Falcon 7x at 5:30 am on a Wednesday. His plane has a crew of 4 and he has 6 guests. At the same time there is a commuter flight 737 taking off right behind his aircraft on the same route under-booked with 15 people on-board plus a crew of 5. here is some more info: - a Falcon 7x burns 347 gallons per hour. A 737 burns 750 gallons per hour. The Falcon has a cruise of 559mph vs the 737s 564mph. - Leo is making this trip once there and once a week later on the way back. The Airline runs this route at this time weekly regardless as to whether it is overbooked or underbooked. - the route is approx 1500 miles, average flight time is about 4 hours 30 minutes weather permitting. Which is worse for the environment? Please calculate for that day, for the 2 weeks, and for the month. Does adding more people make the airliner cleaner? Please show your work.

I dunno....The Auto industry and how consumers buy and interact with cars is fundamentally changing and I think this is just one symptom reflecting that change. What's changing? - Cars are getting more technologically advanced - The cost of cars is increasing driving the prices up - the average length of ownership has increased to 6.5 years from 4.3 years 10 years ago - Cars are getting more reliable and durable, meaning they last longer and are cheaper to fix (the average age of cars on the road is 11.5 years as opposed to 20 years ago (1996) when it was 8.4 A car now represents more of an individual's purchase budget than ever before, they keep the cars longer, and the cars are cheaper to operate for longer than in the past. Increasing the finance term makes sense for the industry in this light. Like everything there are upsides and downsides: Upsides: - you can buy a more expensive car than you would normally be able to afford in your monthly budget. This puts many new cars into the range of people who could normally only afford used cars. - Most carry no prepayment penalty (or a first 2 years only prepayment penalty), so you can finance longer to get a low monthly and then overpay, knowing that if you have a temporary financial hardship in that month you can make the lower minimum payment for that month and divert the excess funds somewhere else. - the interest rate is often comparable to shorter term loans, so if you are prepaying it the difference between this and a shorter loan is not that much different. - it incentivizes people to keep their cars longer and to maintain better than average insurance coverage for longer as well. Downsides: - It can be more expensive if you go full term - you can get trapped into a bad situation if the car ends up having a higher maintenance cost in that post warranty period. - it creates a situation where the borrower is underwater in the loan for longer, increasing the chances that a financial hardship can effect them. - it favors cars that retain their resale value like subarus, jeep wranglers, Toyota camrys, etc...and disincentives people to buy cars that have huge depreciation. Unfortunately a lot more of the cars with large deprecation are American so you could say it is an incentive to buy something other than a GM/Ford/Chrysler product. - it transfers value from the consumer to the mfg/dealer/finance company. How so? in the old days (say the 1980's) a car lasted about 5 years before requiring significant and expensive maintenance, meaning that by the time the consumer was paid off, they were ready to buy another car. However, as cars got more reliable, the financing was running out but the consumer was keeping the car longer - meaning the dealer/mfg wasn't selling as many cars and they weren't getting paid on it. By extending the finance terms, the entity holding the note is receiving an interest amount for that longer period until the consumer needs another car - an amount that the consumer would normally be pocketing where they paid off their car in 5 years and kept it for 10. It is the mfg/dealer/finance company's best interest to keep you rolling over into a new product at the end of the old one, and any kind of gap in that is revenue they are not earning. I am sure there are others people will add. Anyway, just like everything else - there are situations where a longer term can be a benefit, and others where it will not, it's up to the consumer to know what's best for their situation.

meh...maybe if I was shortsighted and just looking for ways to bash liberals while being ignorant to the situation I "might" find it hypocritical (in other words: your usual view of politics). Otherwise it just looks petty and stupid. The thing about the Paris Agreement is that it's voluntary with almost no penalty to a country if it pledges to participate and then just doesn't do anything. The worst they could do is "shame" any country that isn't holding up it's end. So why "pull out"? Symbolism. Trump's "pulling out" is 100% grandstanding for his supporters only. We can't even leave as a country until after the next election so this is a high profile political "stunt" that garners trump good will from his fan base while not actually delivering on anything. It's an empty Gesture. So....now we have a Silicon Valley Billionaire making another empty symbolic gesture, pulling out of the president's council of which the president wasn't listening to anyways, over a disagreement in policy. Big whoop. Still there are several statements Elon is trying to make with this gesture (for whatever it is worth): 1) He disagrees with the president's view on environmentalism 2) he disagrees with the usefulness of a position that the president is outright ignoring the advice of 3) he disagrees with the global message that it sends to the world community about the US and it's desire to collaborate with other countries on global issues. Ted Cruz is only attacking point 1. And it's one of those political falsehoods because air travel pollution only accounts for 2% of global Co2 emissions, 12% of all travel based emissions (vs 74% for road transport), the overwhelming majority comes from commercial airliners operating routes that are over 900 miles. (http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html). Per person the amount of emissions from flying private seems like a lot, but in reality, a 747 pollutes more than a Learjet overall, and the per-person emissions increases the less full a flight is. So in reality - flying private is one of those red herring things dipshit conservatives like to "call environmentally friendly liberals out on" because it sounds worse than it really is and perception is reality in politics. Plus the 160,000 piston driven aircraft pumping atomized lead into the atmosphere (avgas is still leaded) below 10K feet is way worse of a health hazard than the few private jets whisking the rich and famous all over the world. Also Ted Cruz flys private all the time, his private plane bills for the 2016 campaign were somewhere around $45K, so what's his point really? you can fly private as long as you don't care about the environment? If Ted is saying Elon shouldn't care about overall co2 emissions because he adds a minuscule amount to the 12% of transportation based emissions while running a company that is directly addressing the 74% of road based emissions - that's pretty stupid and petty, or in other words that's just Ted being Ted. Tl;DR version: Ted Cruz is envious and a hypocrite, Elon Musk is also one but for reasons unrelated to his method of travel, the whole thing is a distraction and unimportant, Trump is still campaigning the only way he knows how, with a polarizing gesture that is ultimately meaningless, and none of this is something you should pay attention to. Envy got the better of him. On a semi-related note I was listening to the Nerdist interview with the Twitter founders from March of 2016, before all this twitter madness with the president was something we paid attention to, and it's kind of eerie listening to them talk about all the surprisingly altruistic ways in which twitter was benefiting society, A stark contrast to now where it is fueling one of the more fracturing forces in our society. I would love to hear a modern interview with them post Trump, but something tells me they are laying low.

and your point is?

On a semi related note, anybody watch posca pen art videos on YouTube? I'm impressed by a lot of the artwork, most of it is in a graffiti style, but on surfboards and guitars and such. If you are already have some drawing chops wouldn't be that hard to get into: This guys channel on YouTube has some great tutorials: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCz_IWRfUrdimIV9kGhxR3wQ Here he is doing a skate deck:

He calls his wife "mother". I don't think he's hiding it. By the way, what's with the porn tubes getting infested with this incest porn crap, it's fucking creepy.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I see the path to this through education. Too many people just have the plain wrong idea about things and then they build these lofty towers of opinion on what is essentially a foundation of assumption in the face of real knowledge. And it is an easy tower to disturb, to rile up the occupants inside, because every time something happens that conflicts their assumptions it shakes the foundation, rocks the tower, and they come out with their pitchforks and torches. It's easier to just disagee with something than to admit you might have the wrong idea how it works, so they dig in and we get stupid crap like this, on both sides, because in the end the human ego is fragile and cherished and can launch a thousand ships. Point is don't build a tower, build a tent. It's much easier to take down a tent and pitch it somewhere else when the ground turns out to be a swamp of bullshit. I feel like Josephine Baker summed it up best:

So what? You really dealing with a lot of "hollywood" people in your daily life? volumes like how? he's the president, he's the one person who can no longer act like regular people do because his actions are 100% of the time interpreted to be government action. Even congresspeople are given some separation of their personal life from their role, but the president is not afforded that luxury. Its one of the burdens of being a sitting president. If there was one person you could say could violate someone's constitutional rights through individual bullying - it's him. It doesn't matter though, he can't be sued for it. Ok, Got it. Only pretty people are allowed to have opinions. I'm glad we got that cleared up, the opinion police will be round for your opinions shortly. so why are we talking about it? Why do you care? She looks like Andy Dick and Carrot Top's unholy love child, why do you care if it hurts her career? You are advocating censorship and fascism and somehow you are not wrong?

yeah...because it is comedy. Comedians say offensive stuff because it is funny - if what they said was serious it wouldn't be funny. what pics are you talking about? the ones where people hung him in effigy? you don't really need someone to explain those to you, do you? I can imagine it would somehoe involve the difference between comedy/performance art and a Klan rally. The government can't stop this just like they can't stop Illinois Nazis from marching through the town of Skokie, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world can't individually think you are an asshole. Read this again. Seriously, read it to your self out loud an I want you to think...you are advocating someone take seriously something a comedian did for laughs. Someone, I might add, whose audience demographic you are not in. It's completely fine you don't think it's funny, but come on....do you really think Kathy Griffin is going to actually behead the president? One of the actual liberties we enjoy as americans is our freedom of speech and expression...which is actually freedom of censorship from government intervention. Is her image tasteless? sure. Tacky? a little? not funny? eh...not to me and clearly not to you, but maybe someone thinks it's funny, but she's got a right to it. Sure we can, it's called censorship. Just amend the constitution to eliminate the first amendment and the government can then stop shit like this, and all other criticisms you might have against their regime. What you are asking is for is what most totalitarian dictators do when they seize power. unfortunately this is an all or nothing proposition, you can't limit one type without limiting all. Even in areas of the law that deal with things like hate crime draw a pretty specific line around whether it was intentionally meant to maliciously harm and not the content itself in a vacuum. If you somehow think there is an easy solution as to how to "stop shit like this" I am all ears....come on man this is your time to shine, tell us how you would write the law that doesn't violate the constitution or otherwise rob people of their right to speak their mind. We will wait.

have you checked for corrosion in the trans control module? Water can sometimes get in the connectors and then the trans gets all loopy. This is the reason I don't buy automatic BMWs, too complex. the X5 is just an AWD E39 5 series, it's a pretty straight forward car to keep running. however, if you are bored with stuff, can't hurt to mix it up. Unless you are the kind of person that likes to lavish attention on your car more than drive it, don't buy into the toy vs DD argument. If you like driving something you'll like driving it all the time. 996 porches are so cheap right now you could probably dump the x5 and get a finance for one without having to sell your truck. However, you will just be back in the x5 situation the moment something goes wrong and it costs to fix. do you have dogs? kids? things you need an SUV to haul? if not, just finance a newish BRZ/FRS/86 and call it a day.