Geeto67

Casey Putsch (the guy famous on here for wrecking his Viper GTS on 33 in Dublin, but otherwise the guy who runs genius garage) has a 1989 Michael Keaton turbine powered batmobile that he built. It was parked at Toy Barn for a while, I took my kid to see it. Casey lives here in Cbus. Ryan Sheridan, arrested for a medical billing scam in cleveland, had his batmobile confiscated by the Feds in Cleveland. His was chevy powered and based on a caprice chassis. He also had a real Ecto 1 and a back to the future Delorean. No idea if they are still in ohio as they went to auction 8/1/2020. Gotham Crusiers in Dayton will sell you a kit to build either the 1966 or 1989 batmobile. Although not in ohio, the Volo museum outside of Chicago has 3 of the original ones plus the original batcycle. The Volo does lend the 1966 batmobile out for events in ohio, back when we still had events. So yeah I'd say there are more than 2.

If it were a drinking game under those rules you'd be stone cold sober. It pays to actually watch things and see how they come out.

Trump also highlighted how a lot of civil servants are actually civil servants and not as "corrupt" as everyone likes to pretend. How? By being actually corrupt. If you care at all about corruption in politics then you should be elated he is gone. Honestly, if your only take away is government is doing too much then it's really short sighted. Yes it has it's challenges, and yes I do think most americans don't know or don't understand how government functions or what it actually does, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a universal big .gov is automatically bad. It's a case by case basis situation. The pandemic handling at the federal level clearly illustrated that there are somethings that need federal level coordination even if the state is handling it.

I find it laughable that an entire generation that grew up playing with RC10s, Tamiya Grasshoppers and hornets, and Team Losi electric cars, collectively wets itself and cries "it's the end of performance cars" when you start to talk electric full size cars with them. Electric is the new tech, it needs a push to go forward because ICE engines aren't sustainable for us in the volumes we have now. Gasoline is a finite resource, Carbon emissions is a problem that needs addressed, something needs to move the ball forward. It took 40 years for ICE cars to get from novelty local toys to national travel, with electrics we as a society are making the same strides in half the time. Honestly, I would rather see the energy put into a synthetic gasoline replacement that is less pollutant, but there isn't much progress there so....'lectric it is

This is awesome, keep up the good work.

They are a rare car worldwide with only 284 produced. I'm just saying I'm not surprised that a rare car ends up in ohio considering how many other rare cars seem to be floating about, esp in columbus. This is the same city where someone drove a 300SL Gullwing to the last cars and coffee I was at, and someone else brought an Alfa Romeo Giulietta Sprint Speciale, where a cord 810 supercharged roadster and an Auburn Speedster just randomly showed up to der dutchman, and someone else has both the only turbine powered batmobile and the Lykan Hypersport that was in the Fate of the Furious. Ohio is like a giant magnet for rare cars and motorcycles (says the guy who owns a 1 of approx 350 US spec 2006 Ducati Sport 1000 monoposto in yellow).

I can I believe it sold? yes. Can I believe it sold for his asking price? not a chance.

I remember when they came out. Those and the Panoz Esperante were both interesting sports cars that came out at the same time and both used the 4.6L for modular motor. They both kinda look the same too. I think the Qvale came on my radar because at the time I had been trying to buy a neighbors Pantera ($6500!!!, yeah it didn't happen), and the Qvale was originally a De Tamaso until the count walked away from the project. I think I remember car and driver had a nice writeup on it. Speaking of Panoz, I saw a roadster driving around Dublin a couple of months back. Ohio is lousy with weirdo cars: If there is a 1 of 6 pastafazolli built in Austria and Mongolia and then passed through Italy on it's way to America, guaranteed 2 of them end up in ohio for some reason.

The thing I don't get is that the people pushing for it are the people who complain most about being "censored" by social media. It wouldn't cause them to be less censored, it would cause them to be censored more - I don't see the angle they are working here. They couldn't sue social media for being censored if their statements were indeed false or specious so....they are thinking if they can't keep from being called out on their lies then...burn it to the ground? If someone sees the conservative play here let me know.

when I lived in Boston, I lived in an old building with one of those 1930's steel cage elevators with the manual floor control lever. Are there any of those old style still operating in Ohio?

You would think, but back when we had car shows, I saw two other ones - a black one with a black interior at cars and coffee and a green/tan one at the "on the rocks" car show in dublin. I want to say this was 2018. I have stopped being surprised by the weirdo cars that "should be rare" in ohio, and have just embraced that this place is a magnet for rare weirdo cars.

At this point it's as Divisive as the Republicans want it to be. Is it the kind of action that will calm the same people that stormed the capitol and welcome them back into the fold of society? no. It won't. Those people won't accept anything other than overturning the results of the election. However, most Americans seem to be in favor of impeachment. This is basically the GOP's hill to die on in a manner of speaking. They can continue to underplay Trump's actions as a way to save their own image and not lose the support of Trump's less extreme supporters but continue to fall out of favor with moderate independents, or they can cut ties, disavow Trump, vote all the way to impeach, and lose that support they may need in the 2024 election but maybe redeem themselves in the eyes of more moderate republicans that have slowly walked away from the GOP in the trump era. So no matter what it is going to be divisive to some group. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen though. There are many of us who want to see that misdeeds in government still has consequences after 4 years of an alleged rapist and associate of a suspected pedophile basically play merry hob with our government for his own enrichment. It would be nice to know there is at least some line that should not be crossed without penalty. To that end it could be uniting in that it restores some faith in the government to look past it's own self interest.

I listened, I don't agree, and I provided the information that led me to disagree. You want to change my mind, show me how you drew a different conclusion and provide the information that got you there. There are millions who feel pork barrel politics suck, but we don't have massive riots every election because of it.

That's not an issue at all. Democrat Politicians frequently oust their own, disavow those that break moral or societal expectations, undo their own work, change their minds, adjust their policies...etc. For it they get called everything from "flip floppers" to "the radical left" by their opponents. It's so predictable that it's an exploited marketing strategy by the GOP. Meanwhile, the GOP knows their voter base doesn't really care unless it's really something awful like being a pedophile, and so it doesn't capsize them. If you are talking about just regular people in general, I think that's just nonsense. Both sides are full of team players who see no fault in their party in equal measure. If there wasn't in the GOP then the Access Hollywood tape would have ended Trumps run for president. There is a whole subset of political marketing that really just appeals to how people see themselves and not any real policy. The GOP markets their people as "tough, rugged, individualists, with a heavy layering of toxic masculinity, religious moral superiority, and casual misogyny (because boys will be boys)", and the Democrats market their people as "intellectual, fair minded, emotionally sensitive, with a high gloss of secular moral superiority". None of that garbage means anything when it comes to policy or track record, but it puts votes in the ballot box if Johnny GOP can think of himself as in league with fighter pilots and ranchers just because of how he votes, and if Jimmy democrat can cover up his mild casual racism by declaring he supports democrats. Maybe the were and maybe they weren't, and that's kind of the point isn't it? Don't you think you would want the representative your state elected to represent you to make that call instead of someone else who you didn't elect? Even if it is a bill that isn't worth passing as written, don't you want your elected representative to at least take it back to their constituency and if they want it to try to find some way to turn it into something that is? BTW, all these bills are a matter of public record, so you can go look them up and see for yourself. You may need a crash course in how to do congressional research and legal research, but it's out there. More than a few bills are just re-authorizing legislation that already passed and has been in place for decades. A great example is H.R. 4863, United States Export Finance Agency Act, which would reauthorize the federal Export-Import Bank for 10 years. Senate Republicans want an Ex-Im bank, they just don't like that democrats drafted the re-authorization and instead of working to change the language Mitch is just going to sit on it. Why? because passing legislation is like baseball stats - people running for congress use it as proof they are working for their constituency and if he can kill those numbers while boosting his own team, why wouldn't Mitch McConnell do this? As for impeachment, well there is a value to it. Impeaching a second time and getting it to stick will make Trump ineligible to hold any federal political office (even appointed ones). Considering he has already dropped the hint he would run in 2024 (he will try - if anything is consistent it's that trump telegraphs his plays well in advance). Yes it has the secondary effect of making the GOP look bad and that is partisan and kinda taints the whole thing to the casual observer, but what should they do? Let this transgression go unpunished? As for better things to do? what better things? they aren't considering the bills sitting on Mitch's desk, and they pretty much considered every judicial appointment that was put up by the executive branch so the answer is No, they don't have anything better to do.

The protests/riot in DC had nothing to do with Bills and directly stemmed from a disinformation campaign run by the president and those that work for him. These were people that had bad information or just wanted to believe something that was not true. Yes people are dissatisfied by how government works or doesn't (and that pretty much runs in the background of all political conversations) but considering we've had 6 years of a senate that pretty much refused to pass legislation and basically limited their power to appointing judges and naming stuff, I think that has more to do with it than pork in bills (although that is an issue on its own and has been since 1870). Also a President for the last four years who stoked the fire of a divide in order to get what he wanted didn't hurt that dissatisfaction either. I would say that the fact that the democrats were able to take all three branches in a single election is probably a sign that people are dissatisfied with the approach taken in the last 4-6 years. How about instead of everyone we say a majority of reasonable people. You are right, there are some people who just won't compromise no matter what, but those people are a small majority. you are right, it was incorrect to say everyone when I meant most reasonable people.

Explain this. How is it scratching each others back when one side has refused to scratch anybody's back but their own donors and voting base? Bipartisanship just means you get someone from both parties to agree. It's the essence of government compromise - literally the job they were hired to do: Find a way to address an issue that their constituents care about in a manner that everyone can live with.

No, he's using it to stifle bipartisanship and foster the divide. Or at least that's what the numbers tell us. When you have bills being drafted and considered, you have bipartisanship. Even with the majorities we have seen since 2014, for most things to get through the HOR there has to be some bipartisan agreement (even if it is not in equal measure). The consideration by that body is where the negotiation and compromise happens. If a bill makes it from the house to the senate, then the senators get to debate it and negotiate it and compromise, sometimes changing it enough to send it back to the house for a re-vote. If a bill is never brought up for a vote in the senate, then it is not discussed, it is not negotiated, there is no bipartisan compromise, and it eventually times out (a bill expires when congress goes out of session for the year). It dies on Mitch McConnell's desk. Even when Democrats offer to negotiate bills from the house outside of a vote in hopes of getting it to something that could be voted on in the senate, McConnell has leveraged his authority to punish republicans who seek compromise. He can do everything from cancelling their dining and gym privileges at the statehouse to cancelling their campaign funds - it's quite corrupt and somewhat awful. This isn't news, it was a calculated and developed during the Obama administration specifically targeted to undermine bipartisanship and compromise. They aren't hiding it either. McConnell calls himself the grim reaper.

So your opinion is that nobody should exchange opinions and ideas? Seems counter productive. Or is it people should just not share what you don't agree with? oh well. In these conversations there are two types of people: People who want knowledge and people who just want to be right. I expect every opinion I share be challenged. I welcome it actually. It's not personal or an insult - maybe I missed something and someone else came to a different conclusion because of the something I missed. I change my mind often, and often in response to credible information, explanation of point of view, or simply circumstances changing. I want knowledge. Everything you have said so far indicates that you take criticism of your opinion very personally, that you are dug in and you aren't open to new information. You just want to be right, or at least you want someone to validate you and tell you your opinion matters. To that end I recommend either being more open minded and receptive to other information or take your own advice.

Every Democratic led government someone trots out this fear mongering and every time it turns out to be hogwash. At some point don't you get tired of yelling the sky is falling and just kinda want to see if it will actually fall?

Sorry Greg, I couldn't resist.

I guess this boils down to what is your opinion worth? Nobody is ever wrong for having their own opinion. As the saying goes: "they can't take the space in you head". When you share your opinion, it does a few things: - It tells people something about you - It informs people how you feel about something Otherwise, why share it? If you want other's to find merit in your opinion and think highly of your character it needs to be credible. If it is to be credible it needs to be informed. If you response is to more information isn't to consider it and help it shape your opinion then your opinion is neither credible nor informed. Worse than that it tells others that your opinion isn't something they should care about and even that you might not be trusted on certain things. In as much as you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to my opinion that politically you aren't really anyone to be believed or listened to. There aren't right or wrong opinions, just informed and uninformed opinions, and when you present an uninformed opinion you are asking those you share it with to inform you. If your reaction to that is to tell them to fuck off I'm as informed as I want to be, then it speaks volumes to others as to your character and intelligence.

It's a metaphor. Pork in the bills can be a problem...and both sides are guilty of the practice. BTW, sometimes it's not a problem - sometimes its a good thing to package deal certain things. However this is a separate issue and just another whataboutism distraction. You can't even begin to discuss whether a bill has too much pork in it or not unless it is up for consideration. If it isn't being submitted for consideration then the Senate isn't doing the one Job it was elected to do. Do you or Don't you have a problem with one person (the Senate majority leader) single-handedly reducing the effectiveness of your congressperson's representation of you? I have a huge problem with that, every American should have a problem with that - it means that the one part of this that was kind of working was broken by one party.

I think we can all agree that the debates are literal bullshit. There is no part of the presidential process that requires the candidates debate. Prior to 1972 debates it basically was one candidate challenged another and then they would find a news outlet or public forum and do it. From 1976 to 1988 the debates were sponsored by the independent league of women voters. They set the rules with some agreement by the participating parties. They pulled out of sponsorship due to the two parties trying to undermine their independence. From 1988 to now, the debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates which are owned by the two parties. This is why the rules are setup specifically to favor the two parties and have set a high bar for independent candidates to be able to participate. For the debates to have real value, they need to be independently sponsored. As long as they are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates they are not. I am not saying there isn't good information there, sometimes there is, but it is information marked by an asterix as tainted. If we want that to change we need to make it clear to the media and politicians that it needs to change.

If that is all you see then maybe you aren't as informed as you would like to be. The House of Representatives passed 400 bipartisan bills in 2018, and of those 70 got passed by the senate. 10 of those 70 were naming things like post offices and federal parks. For reference, congress usually passes between 300-500 bills a year in a pre Mitch McConnell Senate (that's republicans and democrats). those other approximately 360 bills? They didn't consider them and turn them down, they just didn't review them at all. I don't care what side you are on, you should have a problem with this. Also, you can't say they are doing nothing, there are people doing something - but there is a specific party that is intentionally making sure those trying to do something don't get work done. Now before the libertarian knee jerk kicks in, bills aren't all laws. They are naming things the government owns, they also repeal laws, amend existing laws, approve spending budgets for new and existing programs (like flood insurance and unemployment). It's a lot. Yes part of the government "getting bigger" is passing bills, but you can't make the government smaller or deregulate without passing bills either to remove or invalidate sections of existing laws. Honestly, it would be perfectly fine with me and most libertarians if congress reviewed those bills and voted them down, but they didn't - they just refused to consider them at all. There are plenty of people on both sides of the asile in the house of representatives trying to do something, but we have a senate that has intentionally beached the government and then convinced it's partisan base that it's a good thing when really it isn't. So what's left to do? That's why it looks like a lot of pointing fingers - most people in their news consumption focus on the president or the senate, the house gets plenty of press but it's not usually sexy news and people don't remember it, unless it's something batshit crazy like what we had recently with the objections to certifying the electoral college. Sooner or later you have to admit we are stranded on a sandbar, and it is one specific party that did it and is keeping us there. It's not partisan to recognize that the senate majority party has literally been soaking up a paycheck to under perform in their job role. I am sure that you can find all sorts of other things to rag on the other party for and be right about them, but this is not one. To dismiss it as pointing fingers isn't going to get anybody off the sandbar.

FWIW I think this is an excellent example, because it does highlight how the regular person still gets pulled into the two party system even when they are trying hard not to be pulled in. Just saying "both sides are stupid" isn't helpful. It doesn't matter if it is correct, doesn't matter if it identifies the polarization, it's not a plan to address an issue. Choosing to be captain obvious and then sitting with your arms crossed refusing to participate does not pass for a knowledgeable or saavy political opinion, it's just stating what everyone knows and then deciding to ignore there is still a problem that needs a solution.