Geeto67

Where do you get this idea that you are a "bad guy" for wanting money? nobody is saying that. At all. It's when you start to complain that you have to pay a share into society so that the money can be used to build roads and infrastructure, pay for the defense force, and pay for social programs like disability and unemployment that things start to get a little more critical. You are a member of society, you can't escape that, and you have to pay into that share. If you make more money you have to pay more into society - that's just the economic cost of this opportunities this society has provided to you. Don't like it? there are plenty of other countries and societies to choose from, I am sure you can find one you like better. I don't know why you think you are under attack for this? If you are criticized for anything it is not taking the time to understand the nature of poverty and it's interference with the rights of other racial groups in this country and the interaction of social programs in easing that situation. Thinking everybody has the same opportunity as you is a fiction, there are some people in this country that society has disadvantaged from the day they are born and it's complex as to how it happens and there is no simple solution for it. Choosing to ignore it and then say "the poor are lazy" and acting like there is no such thing as institutional racism is going to draw critics, because again inaction is still action.

This isn't a serious question right? You are just saying this to start a conversation on the theory of democracy right? To have a government that is representative of society every one must be given an equal platform, and voting is one of those platforms. 35.6% of the population is on some government assistance program, however only 5% of the population is unemployed. Let's assume we also remove the 19% who are on disability, even if sone are not counted in the original 35% figure. That means there are still 10% of people who HAVE JOBS and work very hard but still can't make ends meet. That is still twice as many as who are unemployed. To classify those people as lazy is to assume that everyone has the opportunity make a living wage in this country and that is simply not the case. Maybe if you raise the minimum wage, but then you run into the problem of stifling business growth. It's not an easy problem to solve. It is a fatal flaw to assume that the American economy can support everyone in the workforce at a living wage. There aren't enough jobs to go around. This has always been a problem in nearly every economy, it's the reason why Charles dickens stories are so sad. We have a lot of these programs so we don't end up having to pay to house and lodge a large population of orphans and overtax our prison systems. Governments like the one you suggest have existed, and you know what? The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, they die in the streets, and eventually there is an armed revolution. Now if you wanted to talk about limiting voting...there is always the starship troopers suggestion of limiting it only to those with military service...if you want to discuss that theory...

http://jalopnik.com/bizarre-japanese-slant-nose-porsche-997-possibly-redeem-1788448276 http://old-new-jp.com/ I have to say I kind of like this. But I always likes the old aircooled slant noses as well. The front lights remind me of the toyota 2000GT though: http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/201406/1967-toyota-2000-gt-7_600x0w.jpg

no you are just talking out of your ass based on stereotypes you picked up from god knows where. None of the statistics fits what you are saying. Regarding your "social interaction" If you stay home and fuck your sister all the time then it's going to seem like she's a good piece of ass and it's socially acceptable, but if you actually leave your home and interact with the rest of the world you'll realize that the majority of the citizens are women, that she isn't that good, and that you are a monster. savvy? Also don't get all butt hurt because of my metaphorical analogy, I am not actually suggesting you fuck your sister I am just trying to relate to you on your level. Truth is his demographic was very diverse if you compare them state to state. 53% of all voting people in New Hampshire who made over $100K a year voted for him in the New Hampshire primary (trump carried 31%), where as in Iowa Primary he only carried 37% of the voters who make over $100K a year. Why does it look like his demographic is more focused toward the lower income spectrum? well there are just more people. Take New Hampshire for example - only 36% of it's population makes over $100K a year (so his 53% is of that 36% of the whole). you follow? If you straight up compare all people in one income bracket the democrats, particularly sanders were crushing the republicans in that area in some states (and mostly even in others), but if you are trying to say well most of Bernie Sanders supporters make less than $100K a year, well..yeah duh...because there are just more people that make less than $100K a year than there are that make more than $100K a year, but that is going to be true for every candidate. If Trump doesn't have some people pulling for him in the under $100K a year category then he doesn't have a snowballs chance in Florida. I know you are joking, but in the case of Mr. Stowers here it might actually be true.

here is my 2 cents from working with motorcycle exhausts... Generally the diameter of the pipe controls exhaust gas velocity. When you hear about people putting big exhaust on something like their harley or SBC and then complaining they lost power because they removed the backpressure they are sort of right, they caused the engine to work less efficiently because they slow the exhaust gas velocity down. Some cars and bikes have a smaller diameter pipe than necessary to help emissions and speed up exhaust gas velocity so going to a larger pipe in conjunction with enriching the mixture has a positive effect, but if the people who know these cars are saying only use 3" when the car is supercharged/turbo then they are saying 3" is too big and only works in a situation where exhaust gas velocity is less critical (like under pressure). If you want to change the noise, just experiment with different mufflers. That is where all the science of engineering sound is spent. Sure the pipes do add something to the sound, but it's the muffler, the piece that is designed specifically to limit sound, that has the greatest effect. Sorry that I can't help more by saying "use 'x' muffler" but this line of thinking should get you on the right track.

I suppose all those bartenders and broke college kids were the ones that contributed $228 million dollars to his campaign? You know that College Kid Microsoft? he really had to scrape his pennies together to give to Bernie. Or how about That barista at cup of joe...what's her name? or yeah...Boeing, she somehow found $5 to put in the fund. And all my favorite bartenders like IBM, At&T, Apple, and Intel....they really passed the hat around.

I'll make it even simpler for you: you cannot just take the pieces you like, failure to act on something is still acting on it, and in some cases support of it. Let me fix this for you: Just be honest with yourself. He's not being criticized for being wealthy, he's being criticized for being a racist bigot. It doesn't help that he also found a way to make money off that by not renting to black people for decades. The truly wealthy make money regardless of the limitations put upon them, not piss and moan that the government is putting up too many obstacles. You don't see people like Bill Gates or Ted turner whining like a little bitch about taxes do you? you know why? because they have fuck you money and (mostly) intact morals. something I doubt you will possess either of. He probably doesn't answer you because your question is stupid and you should be embarrassed for asking it that way. It presupposes that 100% socialism is the platform. Not all democrat supporters and "liberals" subscribe to the political economic theory of socialism as it applies to the whole of the workforce. But yet your question supposes that just because he's a bernie supporter he is all in on that. You probably do him a favor because every time you do that he is smiling to himself thinking how much smarter he is than you. Just because you support certain government funded programs to counteract the disadvantages that institutional racism has built into the system doesn't mean you think everyone should be equal in a politically communist/socialist like fashion. Even Bernie's redistribution of wealth platform doesn't go that far, if you had bothered to read it. Wanna know a secret? the founding fathers were strongly against the accumulation of wealth by any one institution. They feared this would give business or religious entities more power than the government and would therefore be used to limit people's individual opportunities. How right they were.

So what if if it does. My self worth isn't tied to macho stereotypes. I still get to laugh at a moron who is clearly afraid of the "big bad liberal" to the point he has to resort to hyperbole to make himself seem like the supressed conservative and doesn't have the decency to curb his creative swearing around little kids. I'm sure my kid has heard even me say shit or fuck once in a while but I don't know many parents who would be thrilled of their 4 year old being in earshot of "leaking cunt nugget".

So tell me what is it about Pence you like? Is it his bigoted approach to Homosexuals? The disregard of personal privacy in that he wants to make the Patroit Act permanent? That he believes in the bogus theory of trickle down economics? That he wants to put prayer back in schools? Or is it that he also believes we should build a wall between Mexico and the US? Mike pence is really an old time bible thumper, the kind of politician this country hasn't seen in any major executive branch role in a long time. Even with Trump's Mexico comments Pence still makes Trump look like a screaming social liberal. I honestly think Pence is like life insurance for trump if he were to take office. Nobody would dare attempt anything lest we end up with Pence.

No he settled those a long time ago and paid yuggge fines to do so. But give him time, I'm sure once the democrats take control of congress, and assuming he is still politically a threat, there will be. It's kind of sad that you hold the existence of an investigation against someone. It goes against the basic tenant of the American judicial system that all are innocent until proven guilty. It feels weird agreeing with you on this. I'll do you one better, it's not "fishy" so much as it is confirmed political strategy. If you hold the majority in congress you investigate your opposing party president. The Monica Lewinsky thing didn't just fall out of thin air, nor the investigations into Iran Contra Affair. When "W" was in office he was investigated 14 different times in connection with 35 different impeachment charges none of which went anywhere. It's a sad political fact that if you are the controlling party, you use tax payer's money to conduct investigations to literally churn anything you can find to hurt the opposing party...because you can. This is a practice I would love to see discontinued because, well frankly it wastes our money, that they could spend on improving our well being as citizens. Remember, the government used to wage investigations against private citizens who opposed unfair congressional measures...but nobody remembers Howard Hughes or Joseph McCarthy. It's one of the ways the system has always been broken - there is no accountability for government sponsored investigations.

ALL politicians are corrupt to some degree so what's your point? You think Trump isn't? Still there is a whole lot of smoke but no actual fire. At this point Clinton is now the most investigated presidential candidate in the history of the US presidency and there has yet to be any finding of any significant wrong doing or any violation of law. Either the Clintons are the greatest criminal masterminds the world has ever seen or...and I know this is a stretch for some for the more conservative minded people here.....there may just not be anything. It really is starting to look like the GOP is more scared of the big bad vagina than they are anything else. Go ahead and name 1 instance of actual confirmed corruption that she has been directly linked to and lead to criminal charges...go ahead, I'll wait. It's also more than a little self serving that loudest voices calling her corrupt are those from the people spearheading these investigations...and let's remember here...these are investigations that so far have amounted to literally nothing. I'm no great fan of the Clinton platform, It's often too socially conservative for my tastes, and is soft on financial industry regulation. Minus the overt racisim, it reads like something Ronald Reagan would have backed, I mean you have to work pretty hard to make G H.W. Bush look mainstream and slightly progressive. But again the president's actual power is not what most Americans think it is and from a symbolic standpoint it's pretty eye-opening to the women of this country and potentially inspiring that a group of people could go from not having the right to vote to having a representative in the highest executive office, and all the crap she had to endure to get her there, in less than 100 years. Let's face it, the GOP propaganda machine is all about focusing on non-issues like corruption they can't prove, lies they can't corroborate, and criminal charges that will never come because the party is in the shitter without direction or hope and that has a front man whose only appealing quality is that he has no filter between his brain and his mouth. Whomever wins, a significant part of the population will be unhappy, but that's any election (or did you think Nixon getting elected united the country?). Meltdowns all around for everyone. The only concern I have is will it make a difference when it comes time to vote out the Republican's in congress, because that's really where the two party tug of war lies. Honestly I would take a trump president if it meant Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, and Paul Ryan were shown the way to the unemployment line. Bonus points if it causes any of them to have a crisis of faith and they leave politics as a whole.

Had a real "Conservative Ohioans are stupid moment" Saturday. Decided to go down to the board of elections and vote early since I will not be able to vote on election day. There is a gamestop next door so after I went in to try out the demo on the VR headsets (which are pretty awesome by the way). This dude comes in a few minutes later, late 20's -early 30's ish, shaved head red ohio state sweatshirt. Starts bitching about how "liberals were attacking him in the parking lot" with their liberal agenda, and fuck all of them, and then went into a 15 minute swear laden rant about liberalism in America including "they are coming for my guns" and all the regular ignorant cliches. Keep in mind this is a game stop so there were about 3 kids under the age of 12 in the store (including my daughter) who got to listen to this guy talk about the burden of liberals violently pushing their agenda on him in the parking lot in language that would make a sailor blush. I walked through the same parking lot, there were a lot of people passing out flyers on both sides, and all I had to say was no thank you and they left me alone (I don't take flyers from anyone). I think the worst I saw anybody push anything was an 8 year old girl hugged my 4 year old daughter so she could hand her a trump flyer. hardly an attack. GOP supporters, when your party panders to ignorance and hate, Trump becomes the candidate you totally deserve.

Talk a boy a great fiction. They don't have the missing 33k emails and they haven't reopened anything. They found emails in the Anthony Weiner case that came from the server, they don't know if they are even new emails that they haven't seen before or duplicates to what was already provided from a different source. They also don't know if they are even related to government business since most were directed to Weiner's wife. Comey was required to make the announcement to amend his testimony to congress, and was not politically motivated - although it's timing could have been better.

I agree with you on this. As far as the moral problem it's only "profit" if you put it in your pocket. If you use the money to do other things for the event and reinvest in the event then moral crisis averted. I used to do this with the NYCvinmoto group motorcycle shows I used to put on and we used to use the money to have people come in and give out swag, hire entertainers, or have raffles. As long as it directly benefits the group as a whole then it's no problem. Not that there is anything wrong with making money off the event through your youtube channel or via other social media promotion.

A long time ago people used to criticize welfare by saying the government used to pay you for being alive (so they could tax you other ways).

This is in juxtaposition of them spending on something that helps 0% of the population and only advances a pure political agenda. Continuing to investigate someone and spend millions to find what already has been found is a waste. I may be bad at math but 5% is still greater than 0% so, and by the way 5% is still 15.9 million people. If you can't tell the difference between something that helps actual population and something that is just purely a poilitical move with no direct benefit to the citizens then I don't know what to tell you. If you want to attack it, attack it for what Trish is saying: that the way it is administered has created pockets of people where it harms them more than helps them. nothing is perfect, and programs like these sometimes take years to sort out, but it's still a program trying to address a societal ill. No, I don't see taxes as stealing because the pure definition of "stealing" means you are depriving some one of something against their legal right to it and taxes for the most part are not illegal. Are they unfair? I don't think you'll find anybody in this country that will say the taxes are fair, but they are going to collect it anyway and what the parties are fighting over is how to spend it, not whether to collect it. Even assuming the ACA goes away tomorrow, do you think they will reduce the taxes? not likely. There have been times in the past where it has happened but they are rare. when you look at most of the republican initiatives for tax reform that involve cuts they usually occur at the higher levels of personal income and also the corp tax rates. If you make less than $413,000 a year nothing is really going to change for you, ever (unless they decide to increase the percentage, because that has historically happened). I don't know about you but I ain't out here earning half a million dollars so to me neither party is representing my tax interest. As far as the "trickle down" economic theory of cutting taxes to the rich so it stimulates the poor - well that's just a lie.

uninsured citizens dropped from 50 to 30 million, and the expansion of coverage has led to modest improvements in access to primary care and medications, the affordability of care, and self-reported health. These were the goals the program set out to solve for and so far it looks like it's working. Is it too expensive? probably. Is it rife with corruption? maybe. But at the end of the day it's still intended to be for the benefit of US citizens, not any one political party. You aren't using "theft" in it's literal meaning, it's a buzzword for your political position on taxes in general. So no actual theft is occurring, you are just unhappy you are paying taxes, to which I say suck it up buttercup, unless you are some 1% rich dude your tax base isn't likely to change in any political election, and also they are always going to collect it the only thing that changes is what they spend it on. It used to be pretty easy Republicans spent on defense, and Democrats spent on social programs but these days it's harder to say. Yes and no. There is obstruction on bills and issues affecting the legislature, which has always been a part of the process (e.g philibsters) and can look partisan, and really I don't have a problem with. When you talk about it from the liberal point of view, yes they have been more active in this area but you know what...ok that's actually their job. Then there is obstruction of process and services in general like having the hearings for a supreme court justice or allowing budget hearings so government employees can get paid. If they have objections to the candidate, that is what the hearing is for - they can raise them and it gets considered and then the candidate gets appointed or rejected. By not holding the hearing at all, well...that's just circumventing their job in total. There is a difference between objecting to a partisan position in the forum for which it was intended and just refusing to participate in the actual activities of government. These are the people that need to go - those who can't figure out how to win in a forum where they are party with the controlling majority and their only recourse is to not do their job and fuck over everyone for their narrow self interest. Let's face it, if the GOP is really that worried they are going to lose when they are the majority so much so that they have to cheat the system, then maybe the party is broken and need to stop electing the incumbents and get some more people in there. Unfortunately the only way to get a fresh candidate sometimes is to have the other party win, then the incumbent leaves office and goes away and the party gets someone new to take the seat back in the next election. What this country needs is a good old fashioned fiscal conservative but social moderate who can look at the pork in the programs and ax them for solid financial reasons. The problem is there are no more fiscal conservatives who are socially moderate left in the GOP. They kicked them all out in the 1980's because it wasn't profitable. Social moderates don't draw that church money. Social conservationism has lead the GOP astray and interferes with with them actually having a good candidate. At best right now you can hope for is a candidate who is both fiscal and socially conservative, which just isn't going to be palatable. Something I was hoping trump would do is burn the GOP to the ground so that room could be made for the fiscal conservatives to come back to the party. And while he has fucked the GOP into the ground and it is a mess, time will tell whether it is enough.

At least that tried to help taxpayers. This doesn't even try. Also do you have a credible source for this "Stolen" money? The only references I see are extremely dubious pundit sources and Mike Huckabee claiming money was stolen when it was actually in the president's executive power to transfer funds from one program to another.

Don't forget it's the cradle and center of almost every major religion in the world and they all hate each other. Oil goes away, we can always kick it old school and go back to fighting about ideology. Since this thread bubbled back up to the surface, forget the presidential race for a second can we just talk about how the Republican controlled House oversight committee just wants to waste millions conducting investigations of a democratic controlled white house? Is anybody else pissed about them feeling it's more important to continue investigations than to...oh I don't know....spend it on programs that actually benefit tax payers? So not only do we currently have the highest number of obstructionist politicians (all of them republican) that The senate and the house has ever seen but they are more interested in avenging their party's butthurt than they are in serving their tax payers? Anybody still feel like the republican congresspeople are serving their interests? Ohio has a concentration of Republican Representatives in the House, including social conservative nutbags like Jim Jordan (who is quoted in this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-republicans-are-already-preparing-for-years-of-investigations-of-clinton/2016/10/26/e153a714-9ac3-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html). This whole thing is a waste. Honestly, if the republicans don't get the boot from the house and senate I don't think Trump would have wounded the republican party enough.

my wife calls them "Road cows" because they also seem to be the people that have trouble holding a lane. They just sort of poke along meandering at their own pace, oblivious to other drivers, road markers, laws, etc....

I am a mets fan so I usually don't give two craps about the world series, but I am genuinely excited for this one because of these teams and the history it is going to make no matter who wins. The only thing I am rooting for is that it is a close series and we get 7 games out of it. (also I am kinda pulling for the cubbies because they are such loveable losers and apparently as a mets fan I like that sort of team).

OMG I have such a funny story about that: A couple months back I was sitting at the traffic light on Stelzer Road north bound to Easton way at 5:00. The right most lane has a green turn arrow and it is lit up but the two cars in front of me are not moving. I wait...and wait...and wait...and then I honk, and the middle car sticks the finger out the window (not even the car holding everyone up, the car behind that person). So I honk again, get the finger again. The arrow turns yellow and I just lay on the horn for a solid 30 seconds. The woman gets out of their car and is yelling at me to stop honking while approaching my car. I open the door and stand up keeping the door between us and she realizes I'm 6'5" and pissed off and holding a steering wheel club and she's 5'0 and very petit and stops... and then slinks back to her car. Light turns green a few minutes later and everyone drives off. Over a horn, and she wasn't even the person holding up everyone at the light. Boston is by far the worst, but I was there when the Big Dig was still a thing and had ruined all of the city's flow.

Lol, Columbus people bitching about traffic. You have no idea what traffic really is. Around here, I often find that when the highway is choked the residential streets are usually pretty clear. usually but not always. It may not get you there any faster, but it feels less frustrating. The thing I don't understand is how is it people in ohio have so many accidents? Every Goddamn week there is an accident on 270, sometimes 2-3 times a week at drive time. Yesterday it was a car on it's roof on the way in, monday it was a stalled SUV with a blown tire in the right lane with no shoulder on the way home. Today I got lucky on the way in which means there will probably be on the way home. I honestly saw fewer acccidents when I lived in NY and drove for a living. Damn you people can't drive.

I am. I don't know if the individual stores are franchises or corp owned but this sounds like an isolated store dropping below the state standards in which they are allowed to operate as a certified car dealer. I imagine each state has their own rules as to how they regulate car dealers and what is required in Ohio isn't necessarily required in cali. It is probably the individual store's manager not understanding his state requirements and defaulting to the "corporate standard" which is just not allowed in California. It probably means that CarMax should review their compliance policies and take the standard business world approach that it is a best practice to do your most onerous state's requirements for all the stores.