Geeto67

I feel like Cameron is about as close as you can get to naming a human "camaro" without setting them up for a "boy named sue" kind of life. Plus it's Camero which feels very CR. Edit: Cameron OneElleLee Jenkins

Yes Congress has a big insider trading problem, and it goes back to the time of the civil war. And for a long time the history of it is actually kind of fascinating. The modern "insider trading" issue stems from a poorly worded section of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which outlined that insider trading laws required a breach of fiduciary responsibility, and a member of congress was interpreted as having no fiduciary duty to anyone in their official capacity. Simply put, if a congress person was passed insider information outside of their role in the government, and they acted on it, they could be tried and convicted for insider trading, but if they got the same information through their official channel in their role in congress they were not insider trading because disclosing that information to a public official was considered making the information "public" The STOCK Act in 2012, which was long overdue, put an end to the interpretation and made insider trading illegal, but you must remember that insider trading is very limited. It doesn't cover the ability to influence future events, it only covers knowing information that the public doesn't know that could have an affect on future stock price. The DOJ also has to be able to actually build a case that they can take to trial against the congressperson before they take action, suspicious circumstances are not enough. It's no easy feat, and less so with a DOJ that has seen as much turmoil, resignations, and fresh appointments as it experienced under the trump administration. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-scandal-is-whats-legal-senators-stock-selloffs-before-the-coronavirus-crash-likely-cant-be-proven-as-insider-trading Congress people are investigated all the time for insider trading, and some are even convicted. in 2019 Chis Collins (R-NY) was tried and convicted of insider trading under the STOCK act. So there is some teeth to the law, even if they are blunt teeth. I am not saying Pelosi, or any other member of congress hasn't traded on inside information in the past, I'm sure they have. But the cited example in the link about tesla stock isn't necessarily insider trading. In some ways it's worse because it is legal for a congress person to trade stock in an industry they have influence over and that is the larger problem. It's not enough to say "the normal laws don't apply to them", they do for the most part. Because of their position we should expect and demand that the restrictions go further than the laws that apply to everyone else. one thing we can be proud of as ohioans, is that our own Sherrod Brown introduced a bill to do just that - take it further. It died a death in bill obscurity because without the public outcry there wasn't traction for it in congress, but at least there are some who are trying. https://www.merkley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL19540.pdf

Well Able to be held accountable and actually held accountable are two different things. Mace is saying there isn't a law, but there is. You are saying that they aren't accountable because the DOJ couldn't find enough evidence to charge with a crime (likely because the DOJ had been hobbled by the Executive administration appointments), also true but not always true. Under a different administration things might be different. As for accountability, Kelly Loeffler lost her seat, in part because of a campaign run by her opponent pointing out this, so at least in the court of public opinion one person was held accountable even if the DOJ failed to do so.

'Merica: where in response to alt fuel vehicles a certain segment of the population trades the ICE sedan for a ICE 4 door pickup. Feels like the most American things ever.

Sometimes. Most of what congress does is a matter of public record so sometimes what they know we know at the same time. there are occasions where they get information that is classified, or in advance of the public, but as we saw in 2020 - they get caught for it. If there is one thing the Trump administration taught us as a whole - it is that almost everything that goes on at the Federal level is on public display and there are very few places to hide anything. ^^^^This. This right here is the issue and why it is a moral quandary. Think of it like Pete Rose: In theory they are betting on themselves and if they win we win, if they lose we lose - kinda like how pete rose always bet on his own games for him to win. But the environment it creates might lead a lesser person to bet against themselves and throw the game (they win we lose), which is why the no gambling rule exists in baseball, and why the no stock trading rule should exist for people holding public office. What makes them dangerous is the office. When a CEO does it, it is a ethic conflict to his fiduciary duty to the company, shareholders, employees, etc...but that is mostly a small subset of the population. When a member of congress does it, their ethical conflict is with ALL OF AMERICA.

Um, no. Congress is still accountable to all the same rules and regulations the private sector is concerning stock trades. Insider trading is trading that occurs based on non-public information. Congress is still accountable for insider trading (remember this from a few months back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_trading_scandal) Pelosi's trade is based on public information, but she has influence over future events which creates an environment that promotes market manipulation. Not illegal, but I agree not entirely ethical for a politician to be engaging in. It's not partisan, they all do it as do heads of private companies and also plenty of private citizens, and the only accountability is when they manipulate the market in a deceptive way or a behavior that is misleading as to actual value of the company.

Congrats on getting Hitched man!!!!

Forget the flavors, they put ammonia in cigarettes as a preservative but also because it changes the acidity level of the smoke in order to make the nicotine absorb easier and in greater quantities. The cigarette companies get away with it because it's in small enough doses that it flies under the FDA's outdated prohibitions (for the record the EU has banned ammonia for use in food products since 2001). Once it is legal, the incentive to maximize profits becomes the primary driver for the product as large corporate entities begin to enter the market. Price goes down but so does quality. Supplements are their own multi page discussion. I have yet to see an instance where the FDA banned a supplement because it threatened the profits of the drug companies, But I have seen many many times where the FDA did take action because the supplement didn't work as advertised and was a scam, or if it did had significant negative side effects (see ephedrine). The war on drugs is it's own debacle and another pages long conversation. Most of the prohibitions on popular illegal drugs in this country weren't for health reasons. Marijuana was made illegal in the 1930's as a pretext for incarcerating Mexican immigrants, particularly in california. Nixon created the war on drugs and pushed for the criminalization of LSD so he could more easily incarcerate the black community and government protesters. In this country, drug prohibitions have a very ugly racist history. Yeah, pharma and the medical industry has a lot of money and works both sides of the aisle fairly effectively. Re the Opiate problem - the FDA and the federal government doesn't have that much power in this area. In the case of Opiates they passed all that the FDA required of them and the FDA doesn't have that much power to enforce over-perscription, relying on the state medical boards to police their own physicians. You can't blame one agency for the opiates mess we are in, but you can learn from it and the tobacco companies the lengths those organizations will go to make sure their profits are maximized.

No he's making fun of Not Brian for getting married.

Is it bad? Yes, no, maybe. Lets discuss. Weed: Well it's kind of on it's way to federal decriminalization, but that's a slow process made slower by those who object to it. We've all heard the popular arguments for and against, but really the slowness of the process has to do with the FDA and how do you make it legal. There are two specific hurdles to this: - Regulating additives and production - Weed smoking intersects with cigarette smoking at the public health issue of pulminory and cardiovascular disease. Regarding additives: The moment you legalize it, large companies are going to begin adding things like preservatives to it to make it more shelf stable. Like they did to cigarettes they may seek out the most addictive preservatives they can find without regard to lung or heart health. The FDA would have to setup a whole new set of standards and testing for the production. Also there are child proofing laws, packaging requirements, storage requirements, expiration dates, etc....It's a lot. Regarding the Public Health Issue: The Federal Government, particularly the FDA and ATF, have been waging a campaign since the 1990's to get people to smoke less as a way to reduce lung and heart disease. We are at the point where less than 20% of Americans smoke (down from 42% in 1965) and it has taken a lot of money, work, and time to get that achievement. Ideally the Federal Government would like people not to smoke at all, but that isn't a realistic goal given the environment. I don't think anybody is under the delusion that smoking anything is good for your pulmonary or cardiovascular - weed included. So the Federal government has to weigh legalizing this drug where smoking is the most popular method of consumption and the increase in lung and heart disease that comes with it, against it's own efforts to reduce smoking related lung and heart disease. It has to be very careful to not work against itself. Now before you mention "well what if they made only edibles legal" - pediatric poisoning is a real health issue associated with edibles. Children eating their parent's weed infused gummi bears or brownies isn't uncommon, and often it requires medical intervention. As long as the drug remains illegal at the federal level, the government doesn't have to address these issues as a public health concern, and can regulate marijuana through selective enforcement of criminal statutes. So, it's not just so simple as "legalize it", There are a lot of considerations that are slowing that process down a lot, but as a country we may get there yet. As for automatic weapons - there are 630,000 legal fully automatic weapons in the US. That is all their is and all there will ever be, you want one? go buy one of those. This issue has been examined by the supreme court many times over the course of the last century, and it is well settled that the government has the right under 2A to regulate them. It doesn't matter who you elect, this will never be overturned. This notion that 2A means gun control doesn't exist isn't the historical interpretation it is one that comes from 1977 and the pivot of the NRA from a sportsman's organization to a political organization. You would have to work against 200 years of legislative history and jurisprudence and that just isn't going to happen. It doesn't matter how loud you scream "shall not be infringed", it's not how 200+ years worth of Americans saw it (including the founding fathers) and is just a pipe dream that organizations like the NRA and The Dorr Brothers can use to scam "donations" from hard working but misled Americans.

Nice score. Transmission isn't my choice but if you like it that's fine. Black on black looks good.

About what? Be specific? Greg pretty much called you out on your Tulsi nonsense - that you'd scatter like leaves in the wind the moment the GOP marketing machine focused sights on Tulsi. That she has a massive "socialist" platform you probably aren't even aware of. If there is any intellectual political discussion in your discourse I don't see it. All you do is bitch and moan about the media as a gateway to a larger conspiracy you believe, and this vague idea of the "right thing to do", but you never talk about actual policy, don't discuss any actual issues - it's all this giant swirl of bullshit where you have staked your team. Fuck, you don't even know what socialism actually is, or how it is meant in the context of a democratic socialist, you just know how to regurgitate a callow GOP marketing tagline of "socialism bad". Once upon a time the GOP had actual things they championed (environment, veterans rights, national security, fiscal responsibility) but their track record has shown that for the last 20 years democrats have outperformed them on those issues. They talk of a balanced budget but the last 4 ran up huge deficits. Their current plan of obstruction is literally a scam - they convince libertarian voters who lack knowledge of how legislation works that they are doing something to make government smaller by not filling administrative seats and not passing legislation but in reality you need legislation to make government smaller (you need a bill passed to repeal a law) but all they do it create huge amounts of government waste that we pay for. I've been an independent all my life, I've voted for both parties when they had actual issues and plans tried things. Right now, all I hear you crying about is how it's so unfair that CNN dropped some Chiron that it probably didn't and how that's proof that the Illuminati figured out the next president back in july.

Southern Democrats, Dixiecrats, were conservatives for a long time. From 1861 to 1980, as the democratic party transitioned from conservative to progressive they tried to excise the conservative faction of southern democrats or reform them to abandon segregationist policies to no avail. The civil Rights Act of 1964, Richard Nixon and the Southern strategy, and Finally Ronald Reagan wooed the Dixiecrats over to the Republican side not by trying to appeal to their other interests but by embracing their racisim and giving it a home. It is no secret that Republicans courting the racist vote is a large part of conservative strategy. They have become experts - speaking in a fine dog whistle so as to not appear to sound racist while very much appealing to that demographic. Anytime you want to say something like "well so and so was a democrat first" I want you to listen to this interview Republican Strategist Lee Atwater gave regarding Ronald Reagan's campaign for president about how to win the Dixiecrats over: Democrat, republican it doesn't matter - conservatism has always flirted with racist roots. Ronald Reagan courted the White Supremacy and Evangelical Christian vote hard to win in 1980 and thus married the Republican party to those two masters. Individualism? Small federal government? They are as dead in the GOP as Barry Goldwater, John McCain, Bob Dole, and William F Buckley, and they ain't coming back.

What the hell are you talking about? I don't know where you are getting your news from but literally every news outlet reports on the corona virus death count daily. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases/ https://www.foxnews.com/health/us-tops-daily-coronavirus-death-toll https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-deaths-united-states-each-day-2020-n1177936 https://www.usatoday.com/news/coronavirus/ You literally have to be the dumbest motherfucker alive with your head so far up your ass you look through the back of your own teeth to miss this information. It hasn't slowed one bit. You know what else they are reporting on? The new Administrations plan (in which they reference the death toll IN EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE). YOu know what they used to report on? The old administration's lack of a cohesive plan. If you are complaining that they are reporting that the new administration is taking steps to do something its because THEY ARE ACTUALLY PUTTING A REAL PLAN INTO PLACE. It's news worthy, just like the previous administration's failure to put a cohesive plan into place. It's not partisan, your guy didn't have a plan and they reported on it and the new guy does and they report on that too. The only partisan thing is you wishing and hoping that your guy was better to the point where you fail to accept reality. Yeah, they are super dialed in on it. They inherited 0 plans for vaccine distribution from the previous administration and had to come up with one in a really short time frame. Just so you don't think I am being partisan - here are fox new's top stories on the vaccine schedule complete with their spin that still shows things are moving ahead: https://www.foxnews.com/category/health/infectious-disease/vaccines "priorities" like you are even paying attention to the world around you. I don't care if you want to be a bigot about trans people or don't agree black people should be on money, but don't pretend like other stuff isn't going on because your cognitive dissonance has disconnected you from reality. I agree you totally are.

https://www.jegs.com/i/JAZ-Products/547/260-132-NF/10002/-1 they sell a version with a remote fill neck. The filler cap on jaz fuel cells is removable also so you can fab up what you need to connect to a stock fuel location. B300 vans had a factory option for 36 gallon plastic fuel cells (for ambulance duty), if you can find one it's a bolt in. Northwest Metal Products used to make a drop in replacement 45 gallon tank for Ramchargers that would also fit B series vans. It requires an external fuel pump, but it's the hot setup for dodge off roaders.

https://www.jegs.com/i/JAZ-Products/547/200-032-NF/10002/-1 what's wrong with an off the shelf plastic 32 gal fuel tank?

LOL mass thread hypnosis , I'm going to have to remember that one. As for his german choices: This would be the same list If someone asked, what are the coolest german cars that are just a nightmare to own and one rubber seal away from being mechanically totaled. Despite having a really positive Audi ownership experience, I don't think I would own any A4 or larger Audi without a warranty, including S cars. Tim would be the one to ask since he owned a modded S4. Everyone I knew with an A/S 4 or 5 had the oil consumption issue, some having engines replaced under warranty. The A3 (and the S3/RS3) are the most VW of all the Audi's (MK5-6 2006-2012 and MQB platform 2013+) and tend to have fewer issues than the larger Audi's. They are not without their own issues though, but most have been addressed through the aftermarket. 2013 S3 is a nice car. The A3/TT line are the most reliable cars Audi makes. BMWs are a little different, mostly because they tend to use the same engines/transmissions across platforms. I don't trust the turbo V8s and V10s bmw has been using in their cars lately. I think the E90 M3 was probably the last fun naturally aspirated V8 sedan that was somewhat reliable but it isn't AWD. the 335 turbo and supercharged I6s were AWD and they seem to be pretty ok. they have their own challenges but you don't have to mortgage the house to fix one like you would an M6 V10 and if you keep on the maintenance they rack up the miles. I don't know much about AMG cars, other than you have to be a little nerdy to own one (in a good way). Some of them are lauded as the most reliable thing ever, and others can be mechanically totaled by a $1 oil seal deep in the engine. It's the kind of car you have to research heavily.

Agree with this, but I'll add on to it as well. VW MKV R32: getting a little old now but still a solid car and due to their high price and collectibility there are a few low mileage ones still out there. 2006-2013 Audi A3 VR6 Quattro: Mechanically an R32 but with an audi badge and a slightly longer body and lower roof. I think they actually look better but that's just my opinion. 2006-2013 Audi A3 2.0T Quattro DSG: Basically an AWD MK 5/6 GTI. All the GTI mod stuff will fit on this car no issue. I don't get why we got this far in a thread about AWD fun cars and nobody has mentioned a Subaru product of some kind. Seriously, are WRX's no longer "fun" cars? STAY AWAY FROM BMW 6 SERIES. The cars are beautiful, but they are maintenance traps. The only one to even consider are the N55/N57 I6 powered 635Xi models, and if you are going to grab that engine, might as well get it in a lighter car like the 335xi. The classifieds are filled with mechanically totalled V8 and V10 models because it is more expensive to fix the engine than the car costs.

You say profiteering like they are charging a higher profit margin for the tech when I think the opposite is true - the new tech is expensive and their profit margins are either the same or slightly thinner. Yes there is a higher cost associated with the new tech but the development of new tech is just overall more expensive. If you are expecting GM to change their base business practices just because they are focusing on EV over ICE, that's just expecting too much. And yes High cost hinders adoption, but that's true of any new tech. Look at VHS tapes for an example: as a new tech in the 1980's some VHS players were $500, now you can buy them for $50.

I don't know where the Genius Garage is actually located, but as far as I know Casey lives in Cbus (or rather one of the outlying Suburbs).

So here is my thought on why Ohio has so many rare weird-o cars: Ohio State, The auto industry, and the shipping industry. Ohio state has a huge engineering program. Engineers tend to have a high concentration of gearheads. Although the auto industry is in Detroit, Ohio is littered with smaller engineering and manufacturing suppliers to the OEMs. These shops not only attract a pool of craftsman but some of them also support the classic and sports car industries. Ohio is one of the top shipping hubs in the country. If you can get it to a port, you can get it to ohio. This makes importing rare weirdo cars a lot easier (and cheaper) than most places. Also having a long boring winter does help, esp with restoration projects.

Downplayed how? Be specific What siege of 6 blocks are you talking about? The one in Seattle? The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (that's just the name of the neighborhood in Seattle - not a state capitol nor the capitol in DC). If you missed any reporting on that (violent or otherwise) then that must have been a really comfortable rock to be under. I think the problem isn't the media, It's probably that the content steering algorithms are feeding you some articles and holding back others.

Can you explain, in detail, how this is actually happening? Provide examples (actual examples with links).

I wish the Circle Jerks would make a comeback:

so more than 2 Why do you think we have so much rare stuff? I have my own theories but I'm curious as to why others think (besides Bordem lol).