Geeto67

how many of these driver "experiences" require real safety gear? I see a lot of these vids on youtube where the instructor doesn't have a helmet or jacket, or even long sleeves. They can spend god knows what on leasing a dozen supercars but they can't spring $100 for two helmets with in car radios and require people wear long sleeves and jackets? These cars have A/C, suck it up and put some bare minimum gear on.

My cousins in Arkansas used to complain about the grackles, a flock of them in flight during the day could darken the sky. my bad for reading it as the size of the bird and not the size of the flock.

I had an old Karcher pressure washer with a foam attachment that I left with Dad when I moved here. For light duty it is fantastic. he still uses it and it's been going for like 6-7 years now.

How big a bird are you talking? I have done some nighttime nature walks and seen plenty of owls. Hawks can sometimes hunt at night but not often (dawn/dusk is slightly more common). Both of them feed on small farm animals like rabbits and chickens. the only damage I can think of is by pooping or damage to outdoor coops and pens to get at prey. Being in Texas, are you talking about Bald Eagles? because they are the assholes of the bird world and can legitimately destroy stuff (plus they hunt for sport and not just survival).

The same place you are when it comes to being a voice against white nationalism and supremacy - cowering in a corner un-armed scared. Turds? I assume you mean those with terrorist intentions and not all of them. If you did mean all of them, well then you aren't helping shake that white nationalism label. yeah they didn't get here because we don't have open borders and nobody is advocating open borders. We have a vetting process, neither party wanted to do away with them because they work. You are off your meds Tim. Forget the rest, it's all nationalist and isolationist bullshit. waste of time.

The people coming here don't want to follow it as a society. Assuming Sharia Law as a system of government is the goal of every practitioner of islam is as dumb as assuming a Government based on Talmudic Law is the goal of every Jew, or a government ruled by Cannon Law is the goal of every christian. If you have bought that Sharia law revolution fear mongering propaganda congrats you are sucker. You are holding a smaller group of people as representative of a larger group that doesn't feel that way. No, I don't have a problem with a vetting process that is already in place and is pretty effective. I have a problem with government officials using lies to institute anti-american policies and foster hatred when there is no evidence or rational justification for their policy actions. What on earth would lead you to think that. We have a pretty good vetting system already in place that screens for radical ideology. People when they emigrate bring all sorts of things with them, culture, heritage, philosophy, art, etc...we are already screening for the problem ideology and it's working because the odds of you getting killed by a foreign born terrorist are lower than you getting shot in your home due to a firearm accident. Those people are already here. You really think extremists in any religion provide equality to women and children. Did you forget the rolling shell game the catholic church played with pedophiles for decades in this country. You know Jesus is in the Koran right? If you are looking at their religion as different from any other in this country then the problem isn't Islam, it's you. There is already a strict vetting process. What was proposed wasn't a more strict vetting process it was a ban. your argument holds no water. I don't think you have read the Koran, I don't think you understand the religion at all. You see all these people as only enemy combatants and that is not going to change. You keep talking about them reading a book that tells them to kills us, well...how many people did Dave Chapelle, Mohammed Ali, Janet Jackson, Cat Stevens, Casey Kasem, and Omar Sharif kill? Trust me, I don't think you are a bible thumper, because if you had actually read any of these books you'd understand

President is allowed to block in limited capacity. Doesn't matter because the federal court has blocked it and refused to reinstate so it's dead in the water. All those people you are worried about getting in? they are still getting in. We'll have to see if it makes it to the supreme court. I worry about the human rights of humans because that is what being a humanitarian is. I worry about the constitutional rights of Americans, all Americans, because that's being a good American is. I am critical of a government that is flippant with either of these and contemptuous of Americans who would excuse constitutional violations against their own people.The vetting process for people entering this country takes several years and is fairly robust, esp considering the population entering is not a high risk for terrorist activities. Tim, the bottom line is that you don't want these people here because you don't like their religion, you don't like their heritage, you don't like their language, and you are grasping at any and every straw to justify xenophobia and islamaphobia. The European migration crisis was and is real, but a lot of the problems they have are linked more to geography than they are to terrorist targets. They don't want to come to the US, it's not close enough to their homeland and the process to enter takes years. Making it seem like we would have their problems in volume and scope is nothing more than alarmist bullshit. Furthermore, the US's acceptance of refugees is based on several diplomatic agreements made in exchange for other countries providing us with something we wanted in their borders. Openly unwinding has some pretty far reaching consequences to trade and general deplomacy (not to mention international credibility).

If the president's actions actually had an impact on stopping "those people who are trying to kill us" you might be able to make that case. But it doesn't. The majority of terrorist actions are performed by US born or naturalized American citizens not foreign nationals. Plus the wrong countries are in scope and three of the countries that can be regularly tied back to actual terrorist action on US soil (Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia) are specifically excluded. Plus the "ban" initially included US citizens and green card holders which have a constitutionally protected right to travel outside the US and be let back in. I understand that this has been rectified somewhat but not before the judiciary put a hold on things. A travel restriction that doesn't even move the needle on domestic terrorism, that impacts (or impacted) a specific group of American citizens because of their heritage and deprives them on constitutional rights can't be said to be fighting terrorism. What it looks and smells like is Islamophobia, and if your goal is to suppress religious practice in the US - yes you don't care about human rights. Isis doesn't need a visa or a passport to cause terrorist acts and their focus isn't in sending people here. Their strategy is to recruit American Citizens already living here and to radicalize them. Tell me how the travel restrictions stop that? because they don't.

It's a little of column A and a little of column B depending on the context or the statement. Or in other words typical CR. blah blah blah. you don't have an answer. Not surprised. I guess we are done here.

I didn't dodge, I just gave you and answer you didn't like. It's ok, I don't think Tim has an answer.

don't dodge. I asked you a specific question. what is this "needs" to get done you referenced?

And what is that exactly? What do you think "needs" to get done that isn't already being worked on?

Assuming the 900-1000HP range being reported is accurate it and whatever version of Camaro Chevy puts into the lineup to compete will probably be the cheapest factory cars that touch that number. Can you build a 900hp hot rod that takes pump gas, has traction control, ABS, AC, and all the various other electronic doo-dads for less? unlikely.

You have convinced me Tim: You actually have absolutely no idea how the government works or what political power means or how it is exercised. If you don't understand what rights you are conferred as an American citizen then obviously you aren't going to understand when others were deprived of them. By the way, the America's First movement was a peace organization that got infiltrated by the Nazi's as a way to pressure the American Government to stay out of WWII. It's actions partially contributed to Pearl Harbor through the isolationism stance. Considering the present administration won on the back of foreign discrimination and hatred for geopolitics, and a strong isolationism policy it's not hard to draw a direct parallel between the Nazi's vision of America First and the modern equivalent (with Russia taking the place of Germany). I leave you with this final thought: "Conservationism" based on a contempt of a group of people or a brand of liberalism in abstract is not only representative of a poor set of values, it isn't real conservatism. As a political philosophy Conservatism's main crux is to look at the objective problems that face the nation and present alternative, non-government based solutions to those problems based on the concepts of individual liberty, economic liberty, and general anti communism beliefs. Individual liberty for one class of American citizens that comes at the expense of other American citizens or it's guests is not liberty it's tyranny and oppression. Conservatism is not ignoring root causes and facts related to the problem because it fits your narrative and agenda better. If you overlook white supremacy empowerment in the government because you want to discriminate against a class of people different from you your silence is tacit support of those values. If you overlook constitutional rights violations when it suits you or supports your politica agenda, then you cannot claim to be "pro America" or "pro constitution". If you don't understand that the president has a responsibility to all under his protection and that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS ACTIONS HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES and view the office as only a tool of the party in power then you are a fool yearning for the yoke of tyrannical facisim. So what are you Tim? I leave you with this: every time the president tweets about a company the financial market responds. This is a power that he can exercise to punish individuals, companies, whole sections of the private sector. They don't respond because he is trump, they respond because he is president and the office of the president carries weight. When he punishes a private non-political entity because it impacts the financial well being of his family and it is only in his interest and not the interest of the nation - that is the very definition of corruption, and it is blatant and on display for all to see. You being ok with corruption because it advances your agenda means you can't make the moral argument someone else is worse because you don't care about corruption at all, you just care about your party.

Statements directly from the president have consequences. By tweeting and the subject matter of the tweet, he is making a statement to retailers that the president will consider them a political enemy for their non-politically motivated business decisions. It's unmistakably saber rattling even if no saber is drawn. harmful or helpful doesn't matter, and esp with this president who has shown blatant disregard to the rights of his citizens - it's an abuse of power anyway you slice it. Ethics violations are civil in nature so it's all we can hope for. However, if it was our previous commander in chief I imagine we'd hear "lock her up" from the alt right as well. And the right is continuing to whine about comedy portrayals of the president on non-news television. Last I checked conflicts of interest and constitutional rights are impact issues. I don't give a shit about the size of his hands or crowd size either but I do care when he uses the office of the president to make US citizens feel deprived of their rights. You seem to be willing to give him a pass on ethics transgressions because of the subject matter where there is something far greater at stake. Next you'll tell me reporting on his fictional statements isn't news either (hint: when the president makes a verifiable lie to the public in order to gain public support - that's news). So basically you don't give a shit about human rights or effective policy, so long as it looks like his campaign promises. It doesn't matter that foreign immigrants aren't the problem when it comes to domestic terrorism (the majority of terrorist actions in the last 30 years were performed by American citizens or green card holders who have lived for extended periods in the states) or that an effective ban on muslims hurts the country as a whole. You don't want Muslims here period, regardless if they are American citizens. OK so you don't believe in American values, you just believe in your party's values. got it. Everything is trivial including the constitution to you except the things you dislike.

And that's a bad thing? Remember it's money everyone has earned - if you get a refund then the withholding is taking too much money from you. Would you rather have your money monthly with which to invest, pay bills, and use for recreation? or would you rather have the government hold on to it interest free for a year and then give it back to you all at once at the same time as everyone so private sellers jack up their prices on goods knowing everyone be flush? and yes I know the percentage goes up as income goes up...but that is why some people game the income tax bracket through deductions and filing status.

ok, explain this logic to me. If it were just the original news item on Nordstrom's I would agree with you - not relevant and who cares. However, the CIC decided to comment on it and in doing so came dangerously close to violating some pretty clear ethics rules attached to the position as well as demonstrating why conflicts of interest is a concern with this administration. That is actually worth reporting on because "ethics" and "trustworthiness" were not only primary to the recent election but also core to the CIC position. You understand his twitter commentary and attempt toward enriching himself and his family to the determent of the american public right? where's all your fire and brimstone about best interests of the country and the preservation of the rights of the citizens? And furthermore a whitehouse spokesperson potentially further violating some pretty clear ethics rules reinforces that the position is being used for personal gain of the CIC. the message you send with this comment is that the rights of the american people really don't matter so long as my party's agenda is winning. Is that the intended message? because if not what are you trying to say? I don't know how you can ignore an action that sets a precedent that the president can use his force of office to bully a private sector company and private citizens into specific action that benefits only his family. This is not fake news. These events actually happened and have real legal impacts. As there is not action taken at the moment maybe you can make the case that it is speculative but it isn't fake by any stretch of the imagination. It isn't a pizza place in DC running a human trafficking ring, LOL. This is a clear case of the CIC acting against against the interests of a select group of it's citizens to his family's personal gain. How do you not see it as a problem? And we haven't even addressed whether this represents a 1st amendment violation as well considering that the action may have been facilitated by a financial boycott by private citizens turning nordstroms into an unwilling participant in a political statement. but apparently constitutional rights violations aren't "real problems", LOL.

Now is when you have the "aha" moment and not the various other threads were members told me to go back to where I came from? Let's change the subject shall we...: https://apnews.com/c41ee620816a492190ee249d282cedf9 I am curious about how those who voted based on "trustworthiness" are feeling about an administration that is turning out to be ethically bankrupt with a high number of conflicts of interest.

Glad to hear this is going well clay. Where on the property is this going? I assume back against the fence where the basketball hoop is right? Final thing to consider may be snow dump over the fence or drainage during thaw into the neighbors yard. It would suck to get sued by a neighbor because during a thaw melted snow water ran right into their basement or something.

I am not going to openly fully defend the entirety of a situation where the usefulness of the regulation depends on the particular situation, esp in a system where some legislative abuse or a fast moving change rendering the need obsolete is possible. Where I grew up in NYC, there was a large immigrant population that liked to raise poultry. I don't really see a problem with regulations that prevent people from raising poultry in condos and co-ops because of the health and safety concerns. As long as there is a justifiable reason and the law is narrowly tailored to preventing harm to others or protecting a general public good a cas can be made for it. Personally I do generally agree that people should be able to live freely on land that they own how they see fit, but with the caveat that they can't be openly fucking it up for their neighbor or community. I know a lot of those rainwater cases turn on how the collection by multiple people can harm a community accessed water table or foster the spread of insect or standing water spread disease without careful monitoring and so the law may have some justification, but again that is on a case by case basis. In some of those cases the law may have outgrown its usefulness through changes in population or other outside factors and one thing the system does poorly is readjust laws that are already in place to better meet a change in market. On a personal note, generally I can't stand real estate covenants but those are things a property owner agrees to and not regulations. The oversight on them is low and they have been used in the past to do some pretty nasty things (like racial discrimination in housing). They are almost always an example of how the idea that you can't fuck up your neighbor's property value can be taken too far if not held to scrutiny. Good intention, but often bad execution. TL;DR: people should live freely on their land as long as their actions don't directly harm or contribute to harm to the their neighbors or communities, and there is adequate oversight of the laws that restrict that. That it's an absolute statement mocking absolute statements? Yes, that's partially why I chose it as a response.

not sure how that tracks in an AWD car. in a RWD platform that means slight understeer but you can use the throttle to push the nose around to oversteer but the margin is small. In an AWD car does it mean we are stuck with slight under-steer? or are they putting "drift mode" into it like ford did?

$6K-8K is still a pretty good price considering the platform. I dunno though, $6-8K on CL or cars.com sure, but if you really look outside you can probably find a clean, albeit high mileage, example closer to $4K. Another friend offered me his 2 owner dakar yellow m3 5 speed coupe with 167,000 miles on it for $4500 last year and it was bone stock unmolested. I balked because I had bought the E90 sedan. but you are probably right most $4K cars will be this: https://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/5987353063.html But then again, for a performance car beater you can DD with 0 fucks given and then set on fire and walk away if something major happens - it's still a pretty good value. despite being an automatic I think this is a pretty good deal for a near 20 year old DD: https://detroit.craigslist.org/mcb/cto/5971027661.html but AutoLOL. I'd pay $2K more to have the manual if I was considering buying one: https://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/cto/5960932243.html to be honest though, I would actually rather have this: https://annarbor.craigslist.org/cto/5977847624.html the last spiritual successor to the 2002, e21, and e30 4 cyl cars. It's not valuable, it's punchy, it's light, and nobody will give it a second look. You can auto-x it, DD it, it's hugely upgrade-able, and just a simple honest fun car to drive. If i could get one with crank windows and a set of weber side draft carbs I would be in heaven.

Maybe. Somethings can really only operate one way however. Regulation is a form of problem solving. When you deregulate you subject the people to the problems that the regulation solved and relieve them of the ones they create. Moving backwards is seldom the answer but often the answer proposed by those with the most interest in cheating, not because it fulfills a greater public good but because they want to go back to the way that gave them more of an advantage. What needs to be done but is seldom accomplished is a review of the regulation to see if it still holds a control in place or the market has rendered it obsolete and then adjusted to maintain the solution rather than remain static, but neither party has the appetite for that work so it seldom happens. Think of regulation in the market place under our current system as a jetty pole in the ocean. the pole is un-moving as the market ebbs and flows around it. It needs to be more like a buoy, loosely tethered to a position but bobbing and moving with the marketplace to provide optimal guidance. America has always been a mixed economy society, even back when it was a colony. Complete free market is a dream never realized in practice. We are not more a mixed economy than we were before, despite having more regulation than before. A lot of this is due to the circular nature of growth in markets. I feel like libertarians are just people who failed history class. Keep in mind every regulation is meant to address a harm. If you want to know what the world would be like without that regulation, just look at what was going on before the regulation was enacted. I also feel like libertarian activists don't have alternative solutions to the problem that regulations try to solve. It's a good philosophy for a person to live by individually but bad philosophy by which to govern masses of people. by the way, regulation is sometimes how you return power to the people when other factors have unfairly leveraged things against the masses.

very funny

When the cars were new, I had a friend that worked at the local Porsche/BMW dealer who gave me a ride in a lightweight M3. Other than it is a 1 of 100 car, there is no real different feeling from a common e36 M3. The only thing I think is cool on the car is that the doors are aluminum and the skin is thin, but it's not something you would notice. I remember beating the piss out of a friends new M3 back in 1997 and being really impressed with the car, and then testing driving another friends car that I was considering buying in 2012 and thinking how ordinary it felt. To be honest I like driving the 318 versions of the e36 better because they remind me of my old 2002. It's one of those cars that was really great for it's time and is still mostly good but a new hatchback fwd ford will blow its doors off. BMW collectors are starting to get like those Porsche dildos who buy things like 1 of 4.5 special edition super ugly color combos and then seal them up in a climate controlled tomb. I'm happy there is 1 lightweight car preserved for historical purposes but I'm more glad $4k will buy you a decent e36 M3 to beat the piss out of.