Geeto67

yes you did: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/26/obama-denounces-farrakhan-endorsement/ http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20160709/after-violent-week-obama-and-others-cry-out-for-unity As for the new panthers I don't know that he was ever asked about them. However, he didn't appoint any to his cabinet either. And he has routinely spoken out against racial violence which goes against the means and methods of the NBPP. And I am not saying Trump hasn't spoken out against it, he has: http://www.npr.org/2017/02/21/516488410/after-criticism-trump-speaks-out-against-anti-semitic-violence but it is hard to be credible in speaking out when a member of your own cabinet publishes stuff like this: - 'Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew' - 'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy' - 'Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage' - 'Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet'

First off Anarchists are not "liberals" or "progressives" and they tend to be the catalysts for a lot of the rally violence we are seeing. If you are implying that violence here is in any way attributable to to one side vs the other then you just aren't reading the articles. Both groups are powder in the same keg, the anarchists are the fuse. orly? I suppose "snowflake", "libtard", "Cuck", "Social Justice Warrior", etc... don't really count then eh? This is I guess from your personal experience and what can I say...maybe you need to be around a more diverse crowd. Honestly, I think both sides are trolling pretty hard and it's about 50/50. Insults are just noise, they are . Here is an easy one - if you see someone using terms on these lists: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/every-insult-the-right-uses-to-troll-liberals-explained https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/every-insult-the-left-uses-to-troll-conservatives-explained generally discount their opinions like you are walmart (with the exception of maybe Misogynist since that's an actual word with a real definition and only it's misuse counts as an insult). Well....that was one of the risks that comes with backing an administration whose policies have a veneer of racism to them (e.g. travel ban) and whose members have personally made racist statements or supported policies that have significant racial disparate impact (e.g. Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon). Sometimes the perception outstrips the reality and where as the reality is that you may not be a racist, the perception is that you supported something that is racist and you have accepted it. By the way, the right does this same thing with democratic backers and "socialism" (even in cases where the item in question isn't even socialism - e.g. ACA). that may or may not be true depending on how you define BLM. Like many organizations there are good attributes and bad attributes, and there are also disassociated acts that claim to be part of the org. If you are generally in opposition of the org as a whole and you state as such - then you are going to be perceived racist, and I don't know that label is necessarily unjust. If you have objections to certain methods and tactics but agree they are trying to address a legitimate problem in this country, well then it's probably an unjust perception but since you control your perceptions it's probably best you find a better way to communicate. If what you object to isn't actually BLM but the actions of private actors who just claim to be part of it - well then maybe you need to research things better first. yep - this is a sexist statement. If you don't understand why it's a sexist statement maybe you need to do more homework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment The problem here is that there is an assumption that there wasn't a robust and effective vetting process in place before. Everyone believes we should have a vetting process - the problem here is that one side wrongly believes there isn't one, and the other knows there is one and that it's already really good. The facts of this are - If you are backing a trump position on this, well there isn't anything he can really add to the vetting process to improve it already. Except a travel ban which appears to be islamicly based rather than politically based. Esp when the CIC has said he might give preferential treatment to people of other religions. We all live in the United States, and to a degree the overwhelming majority support it. A lot of the problem here turns on the word support. In outr current administration republicans interpret support of the president as support of Trump and his policies, where as democrats interpret support as holding Trump accountable to the office of the president and its responsibilities to the American people when he deviates from it. 100% agree That is a mighty powerful assumption for you to make based on literally nothing. The current problem with racism isn't about the racism itself, it's about power. Currently there are programs working their way through government where race and religion are the primary focus, but they use some lesser legitimate factor as a mask for the desperate impact they have. Racism without power is just a really shitty opinion. Add power and it becomes racist political policy. yes, but for a lot of them they are starting from a deficit because of historical racist policies that have tendrils extneding into today. If you see the institutional racism in this country as an excuse, then I doubt you will ever see the real problem trying to be solved. The problems with racial impact, crime, poverty, and social costs are all interrelated and require work that recognizes and addresses that. Separating them out and saying it's one factor over the other is not only not seeing the forest from the trees it's just not going to work. yes but not every race has the same privileges nor the power to exercise them. Not all privileges are created equal. Sure you can say it, because statistically it is true. If less people from your group are going to be successful than other groups and the groups are drawn along race lines, and the reason for the difference can be linked back to laws that suppressed rights based on race you can absolutely say that. Bad at statistics are we? Just because one group is less likely to doesn't mean nobody will. This is literally faulty logic. Sure. How about you aren't stopped in an airport because you are white and not Muslim - that's a privilege you enjoy over Mohammed Ali's kid. your example of a father of 4 in the rust belt is false equivalence. Privilege does not equal money. There are things he can do that many wealthier individuals cannot. privilege is also not government sponsored. you are literally defining privilege as two different things in the same example. By the way - in that example of a white father of 4, as someone living in poverty he has a lot in common with others of a different racial mix because of the negative effects of poverty, so tell me why he would back an organization that advocates against his self interest? Social welfare can only benefit him, but somehow some of these people have been swindled that conservatism is on their side because you need to "raise yourself up by your bootstraps" (which itself is a fiction invented by Ben Franklin, who raised himself up by passing his social and familial obligations and costs to his sister who toiled in poverty to maintain them).

you understand the word "Tacit" means implied without being stated, right? I don't mind being challenged (in fact I enjoy it) but try to make it count mmmkay? don't just do it because I did it to you earlier. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/world/americas/trump-white-populism-europe-united-states.html http://time.com/4569129/racist-anti-semitic-incidents-donald-trump/ http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/hate-on-the-rise-after-trumps-election https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/01/donald-trump-and-david-duke-for-the-record/?utm_term=.822c99983993 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-steve-bannon-alt-right-white-nationalist-disavow http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069469 I will save you the time on reading all of these....although he has made statements "Disavowing" racism, he has been fairly weak on the issue. He refused to repudiate the Klan by claiming he "didn't know anything about them" which let's be honest you have to be pretty fucking sheltered in American to not know anything about them. He has been completely silent on anti-Semitic acts carried out in his name and on the rise of such acts in general. And then there is Steve Bannon. It's a little hard to claim you are not associated with the alt-right and White Supremacy when when of your closest advisors runs one of the major news outlets catering to that audience.

New York tends to be excluded from that because most of the roads are sanded. From 1995 to 2013 I lived in NYC, Long Island, Rochester, and New Orleans. The worst my truck had in that time was in the hardtop doors window frame and a small hole where my heel had ground off all the paint on the floor board. In the frame the only problem area I had was where the skidplate/trans mount met the frame. From 2013 to 2017 (the time I have lived in ohio) major rot in the windshield frame, front fenders, floor boards, and dashboard has developed. In the frame I have started to notice surface rust on the frame rails by the shock pockets and shackle mounts. One of the more common Rust out areas on YJs and Older TJs is here: http://i.imgur.com/U2rTy.jpg Water (and whatever else that gets sprayed into the frame from the tires) collects here and there is no drain hole to escape. The later TJs have a drain hole in this location and have fewer instances of frame rot in this area. Other areas of frame rot are the rail near the steering box on YJs and early TJs, the front and rear cross members (esp by the rear shackle mounts on YJs). the good news is that rust is so common many places sell repair metal for the frame. Also, here in Columbus is a place called Rudy's CJ's where he goes through out the south west and buys up dry rust free CJs and YJs to part out to us NE and Midwest jeepers. If you have either of these it's worth checking into.

for 1 year at least. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0 The issue of whether he paid taxes or not is kind of a red herring. It doesn't actually matter whether he paid them or not - the issue is that he has taken a stance that purposefully opaque. In order for the people to trust their politicians, they have to provide some form of transparency, or at least the appearance of transparency. Even Richard Nixon understood this and he was probably more paranoid than the"Papaya Pinochet" currently residing in the oval office. It doesn't matter whether they find anything or not - it is symbolic that he recognizes he owes a duty to the American people and failure to do so is just a giant fuck you to everybody in America. His lack of transparency doesn't seem to bother the bulk of his supporters, just as his regime's tacit empowerment of white supremacy doesn't seem to bother them either. It just gives credence to the theory that most of his supporters aren't really interested in a politician working for their interests so much as they are interested in a politician who is perceived to troll and screw over this fictionalized stereotype of "liberals" they have in their heads. As long as he is fucking over the democrats he can profit from this office all he wants. Who said politics isn't a team sport?

Q5 but get a warranty.

Because they galvanized the bodies but not the frames. Also there are a lot of places on a jeep frame where there is folded metal which is always a trap for moisture. Also AMC and then Chrysler tried to save money by buying the raw materials that was sometimes rusted prior to processing. By the way, I don't know what you guys put on the roads here in Ohio but I've never seen stuff rust like it does out here. I've driven my jeep in the Atlantic Ocean surf and it didn't rust but 3 years on Ohio roads and I. Is have to replace major body panels. Each generation has its own foibles. Forget anything with a CJ in the name. In the YJs 92-95 is when Chrysler started to do some rust prevention but not much, in the TJ, I think the 2004-6 trucks are better than some of the earlier ones but the tj frame rusts almost by design because of water collection points.

Hope it works out. well you don't have to worry about repossession by the bank until it is released post trial. FYI That could be a couple of months to a couple of years depending on how fast the prosecution can secure a conviction. Vehicles as Evidence aren't really treated very well. They will preserve the interior crime scene but they aren't going to start it or drive it and it may not be operational when you get it back. Usually they store this stuff in a big indoor warehouse. Also there is the matter of biological material which is often considered a bio-hazard and requires specialized cleanup. here is a link to the FAQ of Aftermath which explains who pays for this stuff and why it has to be done. If you read through it, you'll notice them mention cost which means if filed through insurance the ins company may total the vehicle if the cost of the cleanup gets within 75% of the value. http://www.aftermath.com/crime-cleanup-services/vehicle-blood-bio-cleaning-car/ Point is, you may not want the truck back when it comes time to collect it. And if you still end up with it - it may cost you a chunk of change. This also brings up another point in which the finance company might be talking to her insurance company about totaling the vehicle. If that is the case, you might not be able to stop them from taking the insurance payout and the insurance company destroying the vehicle. As a family member you should at the very least be able to get a police report detailing the incident and identifying your mom as the victim. Combined with the news reports that may get you some traction (maybe not) on some things until a certificate of death occurs. At the very least you can send notice to places like her insurance company, bank, etc...notifying of the situation so that they don't start sending nasty collections letters while you figure out probate. You need to get a Probate and Estate Administration attorney. Most work off a fee schedule set by the court so that keeps the costs pretty low. Ig you google it about a dozen lawyers come up in Cbus, I haven't practiced in this area in this state so I can't recommend anybody but maybe someone knows someone. I just read about your mom. I'm very sorry for your loss, it's absolutely tragic.

I don't really mind the bigger wheels. Makes it look like the full size hot wheels it is supposed to be. I don't even mind the raised wheel arches either.

Either the person your dad spoke to is full of shit, or he misinterpreted what they were telling him. Yes they can't disclose anything concerning a customer account without authorization. Since your mom can't give authorization anymore you need someone to grant you the authorization. In this case you would submit the estate to the local probate court for administration and they would declare someone (most likely your father) as the executor of the estate. One that happens you will get a letter of administration (which is a court appointed power of attorney) that you take to the loan company, at which point they will then talk to you all you want. You need the letter of administration to close the bank accounts and perform other various functions on behalf of the deceased. Couldn't you get that from a previous bank statement? If you have access to the bank account just search and see how much was paid and to whom. Why is her truck in police custody? If there is a police action tied to your mother's death, you can use that with some of the financial companies to gain a little access, sometimes. What kind of paperwork do you have? You are going to need letters of administration to get the truck released to you and not the finance company once the police are done with it. Here is an FAQ from a probate lawyer's website. They are based in Worthington so might be worth it to contact them and see if they can help you: http://www.elderlaw.us/probate-estate-administration-in-ohio-frequently-asked-questions/ I'm not saying you can't do this on your own, you can, but the atty will make things speed along a lot easier. They will tell you what documentation you have can stand in place of a death certificate to get the probate process started.

its unusual for a finance company to want the car back if payments are not late. . Usually they just want the money and will actually ask the executor of the estate to continue making payments. Have you provided them with a death certificate or power of atty yet? They usually won't talk to anybody without those things. If you stopped making payments then naturally they are going to ask you to voluntarily surrender the car. If the car is underwater with the loan amount they may ask the estate to pay the balance. The bummer about the financial industry is they can be insensitive douchebags when they ask about this stuff. The have no obligation to work with you on a loan amount adjustment or anything. However, if someone has good enough credit you could possibly get a refinance from a different company and they would buy your old finance company out of their position and then you have a new loan in someone else's name. The problem is that if the car is underwater on the loan you may still have to pay the old finance company the difference.

When I was a teenager I used to be heavily into all things R/C. Cars, planes, trucks, you name it. I still dabble a little but haven't bought a car in years, and the only one I use regularly is my clodbuster, which I must have spent near a grand in in 1990's money. What's interesting to me in your pictures is how much my clodbuster looks like your groundpounder. It's basically the same design as a highly modified clod. Surprised at how little things change with this stuff.

so the basic consensus is I need a special tool to read the TPS system, that it's likely a failing sensor, and that a tire place can take care of it easy.

In my jeep it is a common problem for captured nuts to start spinning from age or the weld breaking loose, or just piss poor engineering. Often the backside of the nut is up against something like the floor board so I just hole saw it and then when done I put the rubber plug in and bam done. This way I don't have to deal with a captured nut later on. here is the u-shaped square hole derek mentioned (for a jeep): http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v63/sebastian22/Body%20lift%20install/IMG_9238.jpg

- How do I diagnose the TPS system? with a tool that reads the signal it transmits - can the sensor be replaced without dismounting the tire? No - Is there something else that might be disconnected? Very Doubtful, I'm not a BMW tech. - At some point I think one of the wheels is either bent or chucked a weight back in December, could that have an effect? Very Doubtful, unless the sensor broke off inside the wheel, but you'd likely hear it rolling around.

Half a mil give or take several thousand.

All states have unmarked cars in some form, it's just the restrictions on use of the unmarked car that vary. Keep in mind the general standard for a "marked" car is visible lights and sirens as well as graphics. Some of the slick roof cars I see where the emergency lights are inside the cabin may qualify as "unmarked" despite having graphics. If you are concerned about a cop car not being a cop, you can always call 911 and verify that the unit is in fact a police unit prior to pulling over. I think your odds of encountering a fake cop are low, it does happen. If that's what you are concerned about, there isn't a lot you can do to prevent it other than calling the police and verifying at the time it is happening.

so I have mixed feelings about this. Ruf was known forever as a tuner of Porsches. Love it or hate it, at the end of the day the car was still a factory Porsche body and chassis (mostly). Sure it had a Ruf vin because Porsche would deliver a body in white - but they were still basic, compatible, galvanized, steel 911 bodies. Add to that end their stuff is legendary and their cars hold their value pretty well in part because of this. But this car isn't a Porsche. It looks like a Porsche, it's laid out like a Porsche, it sounds like a Porsche. But it isn't. It's a "kit car". Is it the same as a poorly built Bradly GT or a 356 replica? no it isn't. But how much does that matter? I think we can officially say the compatibility with older 911 models has truly ended, so why not break with tradition and create a new body style all together? At least with a singer, the car is still a 911 at it's core. Sure it's a 911 in sheetmetal, vin, and engine block only, but it's a real deal 911. I guess what I am asking is - does Ruf really have the strength of brand to sell something that is no longer a porsche? and if so, why didn't they make something new. The reason I have mixed feelings is because aircooled 911s are so damn good looking, and this looks like an aircooled 911. also this is what it looks like naked: http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/16/09/1600x962/dsc_0561.jpg

Of course they could justify the same, and to a certain degree we are heading that way, but right now there is more intrinsic value to politicians looking to attract socially conservative voters.

was in NY this past weekend and talking with a buddy of mine. Apparently the hot shit setup these days is "bobbed" deuce and a halfs. cuts the mechanical issues down by 1/3, makes them easier to drive on the highway, and more useful: http://www.boyceequipment.com/m35a2-bobbed-deuce sure you lose the 6x6 but still...not the worst idea until you realize it's $20K.

you said it like there was an easy answer. Trimming line items from a budget is not the same thing as a "smaller" government. We could fund or de-fund all sorts of programs right now and the "size" of government wouldn't change an inch. Historically? because the government was running a campaign against mexican immigrants in the 1920's and 1930's and it was an easy way to criminalize them due to the widespread use among Mexican immigrants. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-anslinger-the-man-behind-the-marijuana-ban/ it's the same stupid conservative, anti-Mexican racism we are dealing with now, except now instead of drugs it's border walls. It's almost the same approach Nixon took with Heroin in the 1970's. Still, if the current opiate crisis has taught us anything it is that all addictive substances have social costs that can't just be ignored by an outright legalization. Because when the US outlawed it in 1913, it cut the tax revenue down by 1/3 and when the great depression hit in 1930 the government realized they needed the tax revenue back to make up for the shortfalls caused by the market crash. It's legal because it was so popular the government couldn't afford to live without it. there are actually so many political motivations tied up with prohibition you can't even imagine: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/10/137077599/prohibition-speakeasies-loopholes-and-politics It's a pretty unique example and not really relate-able in total to other examples in the government (although there are pieces that are similar). Point is, the reasoning behind these things are not always as they appear and while I agree that bureaucracy moves slow it does sometimes move forward.

Large in what way? Keep in mind we actually have three independent governments that stack inside each others' boundaries like Russian nesting dolls: Federal, State, and Municipal. Which would you like to see get "smaller" and in what way?

Is this a serious question? For starters: The elderly, the disabled, The sick, children, the poor...I mean yeah there are always going to be leveraged situations for individuals and government doesn't even attempt to correct for that, but it does try to correct for wide sweeping disadvantages that affect large groups in the population similarly. This is why we have laws against fraud....tell me how repealing fraud regulations would make it easier for people to live life by their means? I am not saying prove that participation trophies exist:dumb:. I am saying prove that it has the negative effects you are claiming it does. Show me empirically, how someone getting a participation award has eroded their character in a way that wasn't in past generation. Support your statement with evidence.

Obama was literally a "middle ground" president when you look at his 8 years. But try getting anybody right of center to say that. Prove this. Seriously. I have been listening to this "participation trophy" bullshit for years and the only proof I have ever seen is one study that constantly gets misinterpreted to support this logic (as opposed to all the other scientific studies on this issue that show positive results come from encouragement, that kids aren't confused about a participation award being a lesser trophy, and that social encouragement actually instills a stronger work ethic). This is one of those old man "get off my lawn" nonsense outrages that isn't actually true and helps to promote a position of moral superiority when it isn't warranted.

probably because you tend to only classify the extremists as liberals, and everyone else in between you find another label for. Honestly, looking at people and saying they are "liberal" or "conservative" is not the best way to approach it since people are people and they tend to change their minds. It's a lot easier to look at the issues separate from people and identify the various solutions and look at them on a spectrum. I honestly don't expect you to do this because a lot of your political point of view is based on stereotypes of people and your perceived superiority to them because of your professed libertarian views. In other words you really aren't any different from the people you dislike. I'm sure they feel the same way about you. I don't consider myself allied to any party, I'm an "issue-ist": someone who takes the particular issues on a case by case basis and sides with whichever solution makes the most sense within my knowledge of government, and honestly I tend to think a lot of the garbage you say is really judgemental, smug, and very narrowminded. but my interaction is limited to what you say on here and not much else so I try to keep an open mind that maybe you are half trolling. If personal interaction is the only thing informing your political opinion as to the other party's platform, then it's a fact that you aren't going to have a very informed opinion about these things. Some of this stuff requires actually research and knowledge to understand - a lot of it is complex and doesn't have a simple solution. understatement of the year. I actually have a really hard time taking most of what you say seriously because so much of it is generalized. It hurts your credibility more than you know. There are no "rules" here, but since you started this thread I assume you actually want to have a meaningful conversation about politics. If you really want that to happen try to...you know....actually talk about issues, platforms, policy, and concerns, and not just generally hate bash a whole bunch of stereotypes, whom you don't bother to understand. Let's take this discussion in a different direction and see how well you do. I personally think that Libertarians are people who haven't learned anything from history. If you go back and look through the historical record each year you go back was less regulated than the one that came after it. But you see really big problems arise in those spaces that regulation was meant to solve for. So how does libertarian-ism solve for those problems? Or does it just assume institutionalized racism, sexism, oppression, financial exploitation, etc.. are all factors to be corrected by the free market? How does libertarian-ism protect those that cannot protect themselves?