Geeto67

I still feel like you must have gotten the worst Hagerty agent in the company. I read my policy and called the help line after you mentioned it and while it is a "tip" they give to people not to leave unlocked vehicles unattended at shows it isn't a requirement of the policy. They are more particular about leaving vehicles unattended at parking lots and garages, esp shopping malls but they are kind of flexible about that if it falls under "pleasure use". Want to take the kids to the candy store in tuttle mall on a saturday, fine - want to take car to work your shift at hot topic on a tuesday, probably not ok. And if you notify them that you are going to do it that day anyway they are usually ok with it as long as it isn't everyday.

When is the release date for the car? April 11th? can't come soon enough - even I am bored with this much hype and I really want the car to kick so much ass.

Alabama has had a real problem for a long time. Despite being pro business and having industrial growth it suffers from what's known as "the Alabama brain drain". It has trouble retaining college and high school graduates and has a more people moving out than moving into state. Without a young educated workforce willing to trade money for experience who care about quality of job expirence it is a lot harder for unions to take hold. Older and more unskilled workers tend to be protectionist of the job because opportunities are fewer for them. As much as people dislike unions, worker safety is one of their primary goals. Because union disincentive tactics have been efffective in Alabama this is the cost of mfg growth in Alabama - high injury rates and lower wages. Alabama's cost of living is fairly low, it's beautiful there, the wages are low, the tax laws are good for business, it should be a paradise of growth and industry, but it struggles because while the workforce will work for less money, they aren't a good value for the money. This is something companies could help on their own by investing in the community but they would rather have the cheap labor force.

now I feel bad about my follow up posts about SJWs Why do we have "gender" based sports at all? because we are tied to this notion that women are athletically inferior to men? why not just tier it on athletic ability like we do with age groups in junior league sports? There are some sports where gender integration would make more sense (baseball, basketball) than others (wrestling, football), and gender integration would bring it's own problems (disparate impact of women getting less recognition in athletics) so who knows how good an idea it is. And then there is the thousands of years of holding the genders to different athletic standards which may have influenced the disparity in gender athleticism, how do you accommodate for that? When you solve one problem in this area another comes up...and that's the nature of life - figuring out which problem you are willing to live with.

How many SJW's do you really know? I mean in real life people. SWJ has become a convenient scapegoat term for people who disagree with conservative positions and actually want to discuss them. It's a lot easier to call someone you disagree with an SJW than it is to evaluate your own position. You can't really force someone to have a conversation with you, and if they are you have a bigger problem than political position...probably because you are about to get into a fist fight. I don't know that I follow this logic. If you are compressing the different societal identifications aren't you just suppressing the differences instead of making them visible? understanding comes from interaction, but if you are suppressing there isn't going to be recognition in the first place. Maybe there would be initial confusion but that's temporary - the more you see something and have to interact with it the more comfortable you get. you are right no one HAS to have a discussion. Again if you feel someone is trying to push you into a discussion you don't want to have to push you into a side, maybe you are being too accommodating. Truth is people want conflict, it is also part of human nature, and you are always going to run into that A-hole that wants to argue with you. I should know, I am one.

I think you get it more than you know. His argument is based on ignoring that the other side exists. If you think being gay or being trans is a choice, then his argument makes sense, if you don't think it's a choice it falls apart. We can further extrapolate from his position that he might make an exception for people who actually suffer from a medical disorder, but it would have to be a medical diagnosis and not a person deciding to have surgery to cut off captain winkie. Starting to see the rub? It's a moral argument masquerading as a scientific one. What his position infers is that we need a "standard" in society to determine gender and we can default to the scientific standard because it appears to be clear, verifiable, and generally uncontroversial - and therefore we can ignore this other social aspect of it (which is controversial). Therefore if you "choose" to be a woman through elective surgery, society doesn't need to recognize you as a woman because you were born a man (subtext: and they don't agree with that choice) so they are going to disincentive you by regarding you as a man). get it now? Here is something else to think about: if all people have equal rights, then why do we need a standard to determine gender? at all? the answer is we do because we don't have equal rights, and in some cases we need special protection for individuals that society has placed at a disadvantage because of gender (like laws that protect pregnant women from being fired because of maternity leave). He is willing to recognize the Boy Scouts of America can discriminate and allow only males in the organization but conveniently he doesn't want to have the conversation about the social impact of this decision. What Shapiro is really saying is "I don't want to recognize this group because I morally disagree with it" but he is framing the argument so that on it's face it appears like a simple solution. And that's how you know he went to Harvard and is an atty - because he understands and knows how to exploit the difference between disparate impact and disparate treatment that most Americans do not. (cue some CR jackass to make fart noises and tell me my post is too long).

If you listen to his spiel on it, it's a very simple one: he doesn't recognize gender identity as a social concern. Actually I think you could go further and say he doesn't recognize gender identity, to him it is a scientific label for categorization not an "identity". From that you could extrapolate that intersex would be recognized from the scientific perspective only - you are only what science deems you to be. If one were to invest more than a minute critical of thought into it one would realize that his entire argument is "just don't recognize the existence of that thing and it's not a problem". It's an argument that appeals to people who want a simple answer to something they don't want to think too hard about. The danger in refusing to recognize that gender identity has an impact to society is that it stifles conversation regarding the societal impact to all genders. Which if you are a conservative looking to maintain the status quo is politically advantageous. Like I said, there is really nothing compelling, novel, or unifying in any argument he makes. It's just a lot of confirmation bias for people who want to keep thinking of trans people as an invisible part of society that shouldn't be recognized. To be fair clay, ignoring something because you don't agree with it is kind of the textbook definition of closed mindedness. As opposed to Shapiro's rhetoric which is you are only allowed to think about it this way and fuck you if you think otherwise. Is it? Or rather is it getting more difficult to have a strong opinion on something without reasonable justification or foundation because someone is going to challenge you on it? I mean, there is a reason rules of etiquette forbid politics, sex, and religion in polite conversation - Maybe the problem isn't having to take a side but rather people have forgotten how to interact with each other.

The thing you have to keep in mind about Ben Shapiro is that he is an entertainer. He's not an expert on anything in particular, and almost all of what he says is literally just his opinion on things - not fact. He is extremely articulate, but his technique is one used by comedians and radio personalities not by any formal debate. He basically discovered that if you say controversial things in a funny way with a lot of confidence people will watch. Honestly I would put him in the same camp as other entertainers/comedians whose sets are politically based - like Colbert, Greg Proops, Jon Stewart, john Oliver, Bill Marr, etc... his comic timing is stellar. You could also think of him as a slightly more entertaining rush limbaugh or a conservative Bill Marr. As to the substance of his rhetoric...well none of his overall ideas are novel or original. He isn't proposing any solutions, nor is he brining any novel insight to any particular issue. He knows what his audience wants to hear and he just finds a funny and entertaining way to confirm their bias. If you look at these three clips posted above his technique is obvious, he sets up a straw man enemy of liberalism mostly made from stereotypes of extremists, he establishes they are doing something malicious and then proceeds to tear the straw man down by doing the same thing he claims they are doing. Everything the says is built on the sands of mocking a fictional group of people. Don't get me wrong, comedy and entertainment writing is hard and he is very good at it, and he is certainly intelligent and quick witted, but politically his message is as vacouous as any of the others pandering to a political audience in the entertainment business (Rachel Madow, Bill O'Riely, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, etc...). I'm not saying you shouldn't watch, heck I watch because like I said his word craft is really good, his comedy timing really good, and his public speaking technique is good (and he rarely says um or ah), it's just his actual message that blows.

I've never heard of that. I know they don't really want you going to shopping malls and parking garages where the car can be left unattended, but shows don't usually even count toward the 2000 miles a year. I'm not saying you aren't right, I am going to go back and check my hagerty policy now because I am worried I missed something.

What restrictions did hagerty have that grundy doesn't? I have been a hagerty customer for 20+ years for the GTO and various classic motorcycles, the only restriction they have had on me was mileage, less than 5k, a year. I told them upfront that I occasionally take my vehicles to work during the summer and various bike nights during the week, and it's never been a problem. All hagerty policies are one lump sum for the year. I paid $400 for 5 classic motorcycles this year (not 400 each, 400 total for all 5).

By the way if you want to see it in person they are hosting an observed trials event in Cleveland June 17-18th: http://www.mototrials.com/6-2017-18-event-info/event-schedule And here is some one wheel action:

Ever see the trials guys that run the bikes without a front wheel? It's intense.

are you coming to CC&C tommorow? let's have a real conversation about this over coffee. It's Friday and I don't feel like typing that much. Don't you mean Romneycare?

I was thinking about the Audi S4, but realized how many cars you owned could have fit the description. Look....you are having a mid-life, 1st divorce crisis. Go buy an air-cooled Porsche 911, a red one. Or a 996 turbo. Then hang out at the local high school parking lot at 3:00 with your shirt's two top buttons open, gold chain and chest hair hanging out, until you get this out of your system. Seriously - go be impulsive, buy a hellcat charger, a bright red one, and then beat the crap out of it till either it goes pop, you die, or it leaves your system.

ok, so let's start there...why is it so easy for us to have law for dogs that apply universally to all breeds and genders of dogs but when we it comes to laws of a similar nature to humans we start to make distinctions and undermine equal treatment or protection? why are the cruelty laws for dogs different from those for cattle? you can't whip or brand a dog, but you can a cow? and don't tell me it's just because of use - because there are plenty of cultures that eat dog. In fact why can't we treat horses as livestock? A lot of this turns on how much we empathize as people with animals, plants, or other species.

so, there is an entire philosophical conversation we can have about why we have different laws and different interpretations for different classes of beings, like why are the animal protection laws different for pets than for livestock when some of the animals are the same, but something tells me you aren't open for that.

the thing that annoyed me is that you couldn't actually buy one from the website (i guess at one point you could?), but you can buy one from walmart: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Diamond-Select-Toys-Back-to-the-Future-Flux-Capacitor-Unlimited-Edition/21803046?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=1143&adid=22222222227035582563&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=76433906554&wl4=aud-273067695102:pla-177521794594&wl5=9004070&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=112549980&wl11=online&wl12=21803046&wl13=&veh=sem here is a cheap one for your cigarette lighter if you need something to make you smile in traffic: https://www.amazon.com/Future-Capacitor-USB-Car-Charger/dp/B00O2KYGQI

When you had a fun car didn't you hate it and complain it was too much power?

Ok but they aren't claiming to be potatoes, they are claiming to be humans, just ones you don't understand. As for who is denying them human rights? That's easy, state governments, employers, businesses open to the public. Lots of people seem to like to interpret person as straight person of specific gender when it really should mean human. If it's a non issue then why Are we talking about it? The rest of America is talking about it. I agree it should be a non-issue, but it isn't.

you selling? I'd dump my beemer in a hot minute to own that car.

ok, but is it polite to force your social construct on to them AFTER they have told you? And further is it right to then hold them to the rights of a potato when you still think they are human just because they say so? It's hilarious you and I thought of the same example from different angles....but let me ask you this - if your social construct still thinks them human, and you are putting ketchup and pepper on them and plan to fry them and eat them....well then what does that say about your social construct? Probably that you are a cannibal. you can't have it both ways - if you think they are human then let them have human rights, even if they don't think they do. If you want to suppress their rights to that of a potato, then start thinking of them as a potato.

That's dumb. The only difference between Religion and Science is that Science is repeatable...sometimes :dumb: unless you are a Snail, a Slug, a worm, most types of flowering plants, some fish...in which case you can be both male and female or neither. Actually, there are some humans that are both too...https://www.britannica.com/science/hermaphroditism yeah it is. And it's a science construct, and the two don't always align as it stands now. I guess what it really comes down to is sometimes people just don't understand that things can be more than one thing, and it's only a matter of perspective that allows you to see that.

Thus why you don't seem to understand "Political Correctness" which is really just an overused term for "don't be an asshole to people" and "don't go out of your way to hurt people's feelings". If a person wants to be called a potato, and it isn't putting you out to do so, then what's the harm in calling them a potato? It's perfectly within your right to not do it, just don't be surprised when they think you are an asshole. So really, your adverse reaction to political correctness is just you not wanting to be thought an asshole when you may be an asshole in a situation. All that stuff about PC extremism is just that - extremism. It's a tiny group of people that Conservatives tend to over-blow entirely because it make an easy and convenient enemy, and it's bonkers enough to help people entrench in their conservative values. Again, the simple answer if you are looking for one is, don't be an asshole. Or if you need a conservative translation: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I think Jesus said it or something. :lolguy: It's not a science issue, it's a rights issue. The laws aren't really setup to deal with the particular problems that come with being a trans person. Marriage rights, health rights, etc...These people want their partners to have access to their medical records like your spouse would, and they want to get married and divorced, and they want their partners to inherit things, and they want it to happen just like it happens for any straight non-trans person. But it's funny that you seem to see global warming and gender equality both only as a science issue.

Remember when TV Prostitutes were a common sight on the streets? oh wait....this is the Midwest you guys all stoned them to death in the 1980's. Nevermind. The video is a lot of overcomplicated nonsense. I'm not saying it's wrong, it actually isn't, but if you are looking for for the "simple answer" it isn't "boys are Y and girls are X and fuck you for thinking otherwise" but rather "just don't be an asshole to anyone, and don't sex shame people because it's rude". Bringing this back around to politics...I don't even mind or care that Prez Donny, the Papaya Pinochet, can only get hard if a Russian Prostitute is pissing on him while filming it. Good for him, who the fuck are we to judge? In fact that is how you take power away from something like that being blackmail - you don't give a fuck and then the russians can't use it as "Kompromat". But we have a lot of uptight un-groovy people in the US so it's an ongoing joke for the rest of his presidency. BTW, I am still convinced Bill and Hillary have an open marriage and the only reason we don't know about it and just assume she's cuckholded is because...well...it's none of our fucking business. Where I do mind is where he uses the power of the office to pick on children creating satire on the web because it interferes with his commercial brand. Because that isn't just sick, it's unamerican!!!!

reality just keeps getting weirder....maybe we do live in a simulation: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/trump-lawyers-swipe-at-teen-cat-website-983518?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR%20Breaking%20News_now_2017-03-21%2018:31:35_ARahman&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_breakingnews