Geeto67

you have to treat that rust on the bottom of the car.

How did they import it? You need paper work that says the vehicle meets federal vehicle safety standards. This is either an MCO or MSO (manufacturer certificate/statement of origin), an FMVSS import sticker, or a letter from the manufacturer. at 30-40 mph you have to register it as a motorcycle (20 mph is the limit for mopeds and other non-registerable vehicles) and that means you need a motorcycle license to ride it.

and the next one up...a wrangler with drag and sand rail infulences: http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/jeep-built-a-hot-rodded-wrangler-and-my-god-is-it-nuts-1793867359 moon tank hiding a winch is brilliant.

Well I don't think you meant to do it in an endearing way like we are friends. Still you don't even see the hypocrisy of it all do you? Everyone in this thread is literally being an asshole to someone. Some are just trying harder than others. And I betcha more than a few don't think they are the asshole. When it comes to these conversations either everyone's the asshole or nobody is. Can't have it both ways. You want to have these types of conversations it comes with the territory. Lots of people have adopted it, a lot more than there used to be anyway considering how much more is out in public. stop worrying so much about what other people do, focus on what you do. Because you are secretly conservative and don't want to admit it. Or at least conservative leaning. It's ok, I think of my self as free agent too but I tend to lean liberal on certain issues. Just be honest with yourself.

I don't think there was a 4 cylinder available on the 2012 impala. 3.5-3.9 v6s and a 5.3 v8 were the only engines (but I could be wrong). sounds valve train related...maybe slightly bent valve, worn out seat, or wiped cam lobe? don't the v6 engines have a problem pulling the rocker arm bolts out of the head? I had a friend whose impala did that but it was an older one.

Well I think that speaks volumes to the measure of your character. Are you telling me that you wouldn't apologize to someone if you offended them and they confronted you about it? if you didn't you would get in a lot of fist fights. You say it below, you are genuinely nice so all this up here - yeah it's bullshit posturing. This is exactly my point. Only thing is apparently you think it's stupid to use N-bombs in public but not faggot or tranny. You recognize exactly that there is a public decorum for this stuff, it's just your dictionary is out of date. meh....you're not even trying now. come one man, put your back into it. I'm just doing what everyone else here is doing, only thing that differs is the subject or my viewpoint. If you think I'm an asshole then clearly you were offended so....who is the pussy now?

thank you. I try. It's kind of you to notice. which he uses to support his opinion at the cost of ignoring other facts. He also mis-characterizes "facts" some times by saying something open to interpretation can only be interpreted as one way as fact. Ok, but then don't use the things he is saying as "fact" as an actual fact if you aren't going to verify it. You have that backwards. He is supposed to be supporting his opinion with facts. In this case he supports his opinion with facts he has selected, has omitted facts that might be critical of his opinion, and in some cases interpreted subjective things in support of his opinion and called them facts. Public Speakers who speak to a captive audience for money are a form of entertainment. Something you wrote is not public speaking. But let's take a look at this. If you wrote a Dissertation then you would have written it in support of candidature for an academic degree or professional qualification. Different Audience and different purpose. If you wrote an Opinion Editorial about cancer in the NY times in which you included a metric fuckton of facts you would still be writing something that is entertainment. Dude is wealthy and has gotten so by being an entertainer. Hardly marginalizing. If you are looking at him like he is teaching you something new or novel about an issue - he isn't. Nothing he is saying hasn't already been said by someone else on the conservative side of this issue 100 times before. What makes people like him his he is entertaining to listen to. When he speaks publicly he isn't trying to win a debate competition, propose legislature, or gain some academic credit, he is entertaining an audience who came to hear what he had to say with his opinion and speaking style. He's playing to an audience, and he only fails if he fails to get a reaction. Am I attacking his credibility? no. You can be an entertainer and still be credible. Unless you are one of these people that thinks entertainers are only Hollywood elite. I'm pretty sure I called Noam Chomsky an entertainer also when he does public speaking engagements. His credibility is established by his CV and the work he does. His arguments are considered good if he can support them, and in this case he uses a lot of trained techniques to patch the holes he has in support of his opinion. In many ways he relies on the ignorance of the audience to help him along as well. You don't know this about me, but I coach both public speaking and debate in a professional setting. It isn't my job, I volunteer to do it within my company to help others who aren't as skilled in this area. You want to know why he sounds intelligent? It isn't what he says - it is because: - he doesn't swear - he doesn't say um or ah (or if he does it is very infrequent) - he doesn't use filler words - his speech is fluid and un-rehearsed - he modulates his voice to emphasis certain points - he is animated and uses body language effectively. He could read a cook book and sound smart using these techniques Wanna know why he is entertaining? Well a lot of the same as above plus - he makes jokes (and many of them are well written) - his quips are fast - he knows how to communicate confidence though his voice - he has good analogies, and references things that are relate-able to a broad audience including pop culture. - he structures his speech so it is easy to follow along and he hits his posts without too many asides - he manages the amount of conflict the audience is willing to tolerate and still be engaged very well. When they are excited by it he ramps up, when they start to get uncomfortable he diffuses it. Personally I think he could manage his smugness a little better but I can see how some people like it when he is being a dick to an audience member. These are all things that can be learned, and you don't have to go to Harvard to do it. All it takes is practice and a good coach. Take away all that stuff and what are you left with? The same dubious argument that everyone on the social conservative side of things has made for the last 50 years. I'm not saying you shouldn't like him. Hell I like him, I think he's 100 times better than anything conservatives have going on TV. I just think he's full of shit.

I'm pretty sure judging people as "pussies" falls into that category of being an asshole. The secret is you aren't saying it to someone that would be offended by it at the moment. maybe (can't speak for some of the other members here). People have always gotten offended, Do you really think this new generation is any different from a previous one? The FCC exists in part to regulate "indecent" broadcasting. Millenials didn't invent the FCC - Those were those "pussies" who lived during the great depression. Or how about that giant pussy Joe McCarthy in the 40's and 50's who lead a witch hunt because he was offended by Communism? There used to be a time when you couldn't say "Fart" or Ass in polite company, now we say it on TV. You think this generation are a bunch of pussies? you should have seen how big a pussies your grandparents were. I think what you need to do is give up this superiority you have over the weak as if they are some how weaker than they have been in the past and try to focus on maybe being a good person. Wanna use Faggot, Tranny, or the N-bomb in your own home - go for it. Want to use it in public, well see my advice about not being an asshole. You can still support the office of president without supporting the politician residing with in, has nobody explained that to you? Mostly it involves holding him accountable for the responsibilities in that office.

you can be as offensive to people as you like. Just don't expect them to keep you employed, serve you in retail, or do anything nice for you if you want to be an asshole. Again, not being an asshole to people is kind of a life skill, don't know why people seem to want to go out of their way to just be assholes to other people with the expectation that those people shouldn't have a reaction or should still do things for them. Seems kinda entitled to me..... If you voted for trump then you voted the people talking loudest about those issue into office. What do you want to say? most Americans are ill informed about politics and make bad choices? I'll agree to that.

I agree, you can't be judged on what you don't put out into the world. Or as my grandpa used to say "there are just some things you ought to keep to yourself". When the Illinois Nazi's hold a rally, they don't cry that the Jews are being mean to them. The accept it and continue planning the 4th Reich. Why modern conservatives are so precious about how liberals judge the opinions they want to share publicly is beyond me.

He is a radio show host, Podcaster, writes an editorial column, and has written several books based on his political opinion. Yes he is an entertainer. He is also a Lawyer, but his talks don't fall into the realm of legal practice. He thinks he's a journalist but I've read some of his stuff and it's all editorial which isn't actually "Reporting". As a general rule Opinion Editorial is entertainment, not journalism. Comedians also travel around to college campuses speaking to young people, often about social topics, do you not want to call them entertainers? Generally, discussions like this on college campuses, be it Dane Cook or Noam Chmosky, come out of the entertainment budget - you want to argue with the people writing the checks? do you not consider Bill O'riely, Rachel Madow, or Sean Hannity entertainers? They are.

Context has a lot to do with it as well. Coming from someone like Milo, who makes a living saying offensive things and thinks of himself as much a comedian and entertainer as a political pundit could probably get away with it. You on the other hand, probably can not. If you are trying to "win" an argument on the internet by just being a semantic wonk, well let's just say I wish you luck.

I have a really love hate relationship with jeep. I absolutely love how much they love their enthusiasts and how much they play to that group. I hate that they just made me spend 45 minutes trying to find a manual trans GC on CL because this looks so damn good: http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/jeep-resto-modded-a-90s-grand-cherokee-off-of-craigslis-1793831886 This is the first Easter Jeep Safari concept truck - it's so "retro-modded" that it has a gameboy in the back seat and a car phone in the dash. Damn that's funny.

If you standard of whether something is acceptable is whether Milo Yiannopoulos does it, maybe you should rethink some of your life choices. :dumb:

It's not that strange... If you are deeply religious in any of the three major religions (Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) there are only two genders for humans. period. Also those religions didn't acknowledge for thousands of years that mental illness was something that existed (choosing to blame demonic possession, divine will or something else supernatural). Even now those religions maintain a stance that men who like women and women who like men are the only "natural order" of things and anything else is someone's choice to defy god. Unfortunately that camp has it's flag firmly planted in republican conservative politics. Outside of that, there are people who just want a "simple" answer and will ignore the complexity of the issue or any research in the matter. Often they make a "moral" determination that trans is still somehow "wrong" and in order to keep is simple will pull all manner of false logic and false equivalency to justify their stance. I feel like a lot of this position comes from people who just haven't had a lot of exposure to this particular community in their lives so it is easy to discuss it in the abstract instead of thinking of people as people. Shapiro is a bit of both if you listen to him. If you follow his logic what he is really saying is that those who suffer from gender dysphoria should not be recognized as the gender they think they are, that it is a lesser thing and should be treated as such, and by the way anybody who isn't genetically a man who thinks he is a man must have it. He's basically saying we should not accommodate the mentally ill - a position consistent with his practice of orthodox Judaism and consistent with his other moralistic positions on the matter. The other thing to consider here is that if you start to bring in the mental illness aspect of it, well then you are starting to have the conversation as to whether the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) should exclude it or not. Presently the ADA excludes transsexualism as a disability but the EEOC has said that transsexual discrimination in the workplace is an actionable offense. Currently there is a lawsuit that has been going on since 2015 (Blatt V. Cabelas) to determine whether the ADA exclusion is proper. So should be interesting. Like i said - complex issue that can't be solved by saying "the solution is simple: if you have a penis you are a man". If you still choose to take that position - don't be surprised that there are going to be people that you offend and who will react poorly, because you are perceived as treating them poorly and will call you names like "bigot".

people love watching other people be assholes to one another. It's why reality TV is popular.

Now you are just being silly

sorry, there was a typo...I meant to say stop advocating to ignore the problem. This is mainly directed at conservatives who seem to be the ones drafting legislation and crying that the big bad liberals are calling them bigots when they call a he a she or vice versa. I suppose it could also apply to extremists on both sides. We evolve as a society through discussion. Sensible discussion which works toward a solution. If your position is fuck you we aren't discussing it and by the way we are going to pass all these new laws about it then...do you really get to cry fowl when the people affected by that decision say you are discriminating against them? To bring this back to the original topic Mr. Shapiro's opinion is "fuck you this is not up for discussion as a social construct and you can't call us bigots because we feel that way." Sorry junior can't have both.

I don't think anybody here is saying anyone "needs" to accept it, just stop advocating that everyone should ignore the issue and stop complaining that your feelings are hurt when you don't and people call you names for it.

and if the parents side with the girl who has a penis? what then? Normally I would bring up the rape problem that usually attaches to trans people and bathrooms (as in they are at a higher risk for being raped, not that they commit rape) but the military can't get it's shit together on that front with the two genders it has to manage now.

do you want to be the one to check that she does? Edit: Dammit greg...beat me to it again. lol I don't think this is an accurate statement. It's a Social Conservative platform (i.e. religious right and traditionalists) and since the republican party has been forcing out all the fiscally conservative, socially moderate people as of late that leaves the direction of the social policies to the religious backers and traditionalists. Social Conservatives were the largest supporters of trump during the recent election so whether you want to admit it or not - if you are a conservative in the country backing republicans you are along for this particular ride and for your team making the biggest stink over it. At this point it's bundled with Anti-gay marriage, Anti-Abortion, and anti-pornography which makes it a core issue to Republican Conservative politics in this country. Or to put it more simply - if you are a republican or trump supporter in this country, you care about this issue whether you actually care or not.

what's your point Brandon? use your words.

Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon both saw mental illness and associated psychiatry with Communism (it has been suggested this was a common view in Southern California from 1900 to the 1970's). Nothing more "un-american" than communism (here is a good book on it: https://books.google.com/books?id=QZoRAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT87&lpg=PT87&dq=associated+psychiatry+with+communism+southern+california&source=bl&ots=46_cC67nnk&sig=FHuOLr6p4c8T0fMwzGvQWhRWDA8&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwij5M6Eq_zSAhWsy4MKHeH_Dd0Q6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&q=associated%20psychiatry%20with%20communism%20southern%20california&f=false). (chapter 5 is particularly relevant) agreed. The Bootstraps argument is garbage in and of itself. the "Self made man" in America traces back to Benjamin Franklin. In fact the bootstrap image comes from a letter wrote to him imploring him to write his biography. While he did come from a poor family, he wasn't entirely "self made" his father paid for 2 years education in the clergy and then managed to secure him a very good apprenticeship as a stationer, and then he secured another apprenticeship with his older bother at a printing press.So nepotism is ok if you are a self made man. Ben had other breaks too, for instance he never had to take care of his aging parents - that fell to his sister Jane who once compared poverty to an inescapable prison (and in fact her husband and children spent many years in debtors prison). So the original self made man was someone who had good access to education, got really lucky in finding prospects that paid for his travel, and didn't have to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of a family (although much later in life he did start to take care of his sister Jane). Yup, those modern kids whose educational funding is cut, whose parent's don't have the ability to raise their own station let alone someone else's, and who often have to help support their own families should totally do what Ben Franklin did. Nobody is "Self made". Whatever success any of us has in life comes standing on the shoulders of those who support us whether it be financial, physical, emotional, or as part of a community. Bootstraps is a fairy tale people tell themselves to they can feel better about being lucky, and all those shit jobs and decisions "paid off" - as if their influence and actions had everything to do with it and they were always in control.

yes to some degree. In the past people with these disorders were generally lumped in with other LGBT people and marginalized by American society. If you were a member of this group you were at a higher risk for violent attack, almost unemployable, and often deprived of rights by those charged with enforcing and protecting them. In England it was a crime until 1967, in the US it is still a crime in certain states. In most cases it wasn't based on actual truth in gender - it's more about how effeminate you appear to be as a man or how masculine you appear to be as a woman. add in the progression of science, esp that surronding genes and DNA research that have made great strides in the 20th and 21st century and you can't even compare now to back then without "back then" being viewed as primitive.

that seems to be the conservative theme these days. The school of conservative intellectualism championed by people like William F Buckley, Robert McNamara, and Barry Goldwater are as dead as the men themselves. Shapiro's argument is not new. His delivery is the only differentiating factor - people love it when someone is being an asshole to people and this dude loves being an asshole, he plays to the crowd. In every scenario where he doesn't have a clear opponent he just sets up his straw man made out of stereotypes and then attacks it. But his message is the same garbage message post Reagan conservatism has been pushing for a while: - We have free speech in this country so people who have terrible opinions should have free air time and be free from ridicule no matter how terrible their ideas are. (this one particularly bugs me because it is basically saying I want to be an asshole but you can't treat me like an asshole. Who knew conservatives were such pussies? it sets up this idea that because we have laws against government interference with speech - private citizens are not being very American when they have opinions about other people's opinions. Even though Shapiro isn't part of the Alt Right if you are wondering where the rise in white supremacy in conservatism is coming from it is this general shared ideal among all conservatives). - We have moral standards and if you don't agree with them or are trying to change them then you are a bad person worthy of ridicule (pointed this out before with his transgender argument, he's basically saying it's ok to be an asshole to these people and ignore their place in society because "science" doesn't recognize them except in limited circumstances). - Everyone should act however the feel unless the way you feel requires safe spaces, service animals, or something else that is weird, new age-y, and not tough (I find it hilarious that most of conservationism gets sold on the image of rugged individualism and being a "tough but fair" person, when so many conservatives are judgemental crybaby assholes when it comes to "touchy-feely" things like this. the idea of "safe spaces" comes from the psychological treatment of veterans and abused children - the goal is to create an environment where a group who feels anxiety from constant attack can feel safe from persecution or marginalization. Outside of formal treatment it was first adopted by the women's movement, then the LGBTQ movement, and is now in use on college campuses because, and here is the shocker, Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students (car accidents are the first). The premise behind a safe space is simple - don't be an asshole to people but apparently being an asshole is part of that rugged tough guy image conservatism loves to cultivate. It's more important to not be seen as a faggot pussy than it is keep college kids from killing themselves). - "social justice" is an excuse for race baiting. (he takes a pretty narrow view on the idea of social justice and overuses the stereotype of SJWs to just set up and mock opponents. This is really a distraction and false equivalency technique: the other side must be wrong because 1 or 2 people misuse this term so everyone who associates with is also wrong when they call me a homophobe when I specifically marginalize the LGBT community).