Geeto67

700hp? fuck me running... that is awesome.

I see how it could appear that way, and politicians have certainly seized upon that to their advantage. There are two way to look at this: - procedural: Even in regular american criminal trials there are a lot of bureaucratic issues that need to be settled before a trial begins such as jury selection, agreeing on jury instructions, and 1000 different nitpicky rules of evidence, even order of witnesses. But criminal trials are very structured and their rules are pretty laid out, with an impeachment hearing since there isn't a lot of procedure and jurisprudence, the structure of the trial itself needs to be agreed to by both parties to be considered fair. In the clinton impeachment the senate was able to vote on and ratify the rules of trial unanimously in one day but it took two weeks to agree to whether witnesses were to be called (eventually it was decided they would be), For nixon it didn't get this far because he resigned, and for Johnson it took them about two weeks as well. The differences in this case and all previous ones are: 1) The impeachment was submitted and then the rules of procedure were debated/drafted/voted after. 2) Never before have any congressmen publicly said they were not going to be call witnesses or impartial in an impeachment hearing and had the votes to back that up. Usually the senate waits to hear the evidence to decide to call witnesses. strictly from a procedural standpoint I don't think it speaks to the merits of the case, but I do think it is a creative way to address a situation where the majority has already threatened to deviate from past process. - Political Well of course there is a political strategy component to this for both sides. you already brought up the "weak case" republican point of view so I will address the democrat strategy: 1) it signals a lack of confidence in the senate to hold an impartial trial. This sets up the framework for a challenge to the process later if the outcome is not in the favor of the democrats. 2) it buys those who might defect from the republican party line some time to break ranks. If some republicans break ranks the tone of the proceeding could change. 3) It gives the GOP the opportunity to restore at least the appearance of impartiality. Based on McConnell's and Graham's statements in the press this is a bit of a trap for them because either they have to recant their public statements and agree to procedure, or they bully ahead potentially have to take the hit to their reputation that they are corrupt. If you want my opinion it's a smart political move by the House. I don't think anybody expects the 2/3rds majority vote to impeach and remove in the senate, but the democrats only need 4 GOP senators to break ranks to change the tone of proceedings and damage the GOP's allegations that this was a railroading, witch hunt, etc.... The change in tone might be enough to sway moderate on the fence voters for the next election, something the GOP can't afford to lose going into 2020. TL/DR: I don't think there is a weak case, I think the move is a smart political one for democrats, but also objectively the right move in light of a congress that has said it has no intention of acting impartially. In the end it will only divide us further. It has an equal chance of strengthening the democrats or backfiring and pulling public opinion toward the GOP, all depending on who shouts loudest in the media. Either way it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

sharp. nice score.

I didn't say the bias was running only with one party.... ....however, the looming threat of impeachment is the kind of the danger of any president in office and what keeps a lot of them "honest" to the role. Plenty of Republicans called for Obama's impeachment during his administration, but even when republicans controlled both the house and the senate they didn't because there weren't any grounds to - Obama understood the role of his office and made sure not to tread lightly. Same with both Bushes, Carter, Kennedy, Ford, etc... Clinton was impeached not for his sexual transgression but lying about it in a sworn deposition by a majority led republican house, and acquitted in the senate. I mean any claim of bias now against democrats makes the same argument against republicans in 1998. Nixon...well let's not talk about nixon because if there was ever a clearer example of politically burning your own house down I don't know if it exists. So yes you can claim that the other side was always looking for him to "slip up" and then nail him, but really that is what happens to every president and one of the things that keeps them in check. They can't just "impeach" a president him for no reason, just like you can't try someone in criminal court without a crime, and impeachment is part of the due process of this country written into the constitution. You are basically making the argument that police shouldn't arrest criminals because they are always watching and waiting for people to commit crime. despite the political noise, the proceedings and the evidence has been pretty fair and makes a pretty good case for this at least going through the proper procedure. If you want to make the case that what the president did isn't grounds for removal from office well at least that is an honest opinion. If you are railing against a process that has been spelled out in the constitution and the precedent of 3 prior times - well you aren't being honest with yourself and buying into the louder noise machine.

Neat!!!! congrats on the new truck. Is the Whipple a dealer installed option? I am assuming this is a v8 truck.

if anyone wants to read the actual articles of impeachment you can do so here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6567-read-the-articles-of-impeachme/5d0f5a8d150481cbb981/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 I encourage everyone to read it and asks questions. IMHO it spells out pretty clearly the charges but it may not be readily apparent to people not used to reading government documents, so ask questions here.

By the way, the federal government has convicted members of organized crime of "racketeering" quid pro quo charges on less evidence than has been presented in this case. The only reason it is even a question here is that while our justice system operates impartially without political bias, this proceeding has political bias from both sides. The real shame of the republican party is that many of those who would have opposed the republican party line either voluntary removed themselves or were forced out from their positions to avoid having to go against the republican party line and do the right thing. If you were a juror in a criminal trial and you publicly stated you were not going to be impartial you would be removed from that trial - but here we have seen more than one senator go on television and state they have no intent to be impartial against their oath of office.

So "crime" is maybe the wrong word. Crime means an activity prohibited by law, and honestly a sitting president cannot be tried for a crime. I think the better question is what is the harm. The standard that presidents are held to is their oath of office and responsibility to the people - which boils down to "presidents can't put their own self interests above the needs of the people they represent". In this case American is funding the Ukraine side of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. It has already been determined that the US has a national security stake in the conflict and therefore it is in the interests of the american people to maintain that. Any action that interferes with that is subject to scrutiny. If Trump withheld military aid because the transfer of funds was not secure, or for some other related reason, I don't think anybody would have questioned his actions. The fact that he held it up for an unrelated reason and that it appears it was more for his own benefit than the american people still needs to be decided by the senate in their hearing. That's the question at issue in this case - As the president, did he use his power for personal gain (information on a political rival) against the detriment of the american people. The House of representatives says that yes it happened no senate figure out if this a breach of his oath of office which the senate will decide. now if you want my subjective opinion: - yes he held up military aid for the benefit of his election, yes that is an impeachable offence to his office. Even Nixon, who used the FBI to spy on his political rivals knew that involving a foreign country was a bridge too far. - The republican defense to this is largely procedural and bullshit. When the investigation was closed, they complained it wasn't open, when it was open they complained it isn't closed. They compliant they don't have representation yet there has been representation by their party on every committee. They complain the "right " people aren't included and when those people do get included all they do is disrupt the hearing and run afoul of it's procedures. - the unspoken shame of this process is that it is an impartial process that requires a political majority of an opposing party to get traction. That is not how oversight works because it introduces bias where there should be none. Republicans know that there is no defense to the merits of this case, so they cry publicly about how political and unfair it is as a way to convince their base to continue to vote for them. votes are the political currency of Washington and as long as it looks like being on the wrong side of history will keep them in office they are unified.

It's not an exact 1:1 correlation but think of it in the context of the criminal justice system: In the criminal justice system there is a grand jury trial, a jury trial, and then a sentencing hearing. To oversimplify it the grand jury trial determines whether a crime exists based on the evidence that warrants a trial on the facts, the jury trial determines whether the accused actually committed the crime, and the sentencing hearing (if necessary) imposes punishment. The House of Representatives review of impeachment is similar to a grand jury trial. The house representatives acted as the jurors in reviewing the evidence and interrogating the witnesses to see if formal charges are warranted. Then the representatives act as the prosecutor and draft the issue to be resolved in the form of "articles of impeachment" which moves it to the senate for an impeachment trial. The articles of impeachment defines the charges and accuses the president. The Senate impeachment proceeding acts as a jury trial and a sentencing hearing. The purpose of the senate trial is to review the charges, evidence and findings from the house, and then call any supplemental witnesses. The key difference from a criminal trial is the question being answered - instead of "did the president rob this bank" it is "Was the president robbing the bank in the interest of all Americans and not for personal gain" (yes I know it's not about bank robbery - I just thought it would be clearer this way). Where we are now in the process is that the House of Representatives has filed articles of impeachment. Once a president has had AoI filed against them they are considered impeached in the same way once a person has criminal charges laid against them they go from being a suspect to a defendant. What is confusing is that most people also use "impeached" as a term for "removed from office" or sanctioned as well. So Andrew Johnson was impeached when he was removed from office and Bill Clinton was "impeached" when he was charged with lying under oath and acquitted of those charges. Two very different outcomes with one word to describe them.

good to know about the pricing. I am not really looking for someone to cut me a deal so much as someone to steer me in the right direction for the combination that will get the job done. Looking at Jegs' site today and GM performance and blueprint have some nice engines right around the $4K mark Buddy of mine bought a jasper reman engine in the late 90's for his 3rd gen. It was a total piece of crap, ended up warranting it twice. That's a really nice kit. I am assuming it also makes 260hp with the FI? That would be perfect if it made 300hp,are there other options like that? pm sent.

thanks guys, The eventual goal is to FI the thing, probably with a holley sniper or an edelbrock kit, but that's a year away. Right now I want to get the car running again so dad can drive it. Dad wants to make power tour 2020 with it, and right now the car is in paint and bodywork for the next two months so now is a good time to figure this out. Every LS engine we looked into starts at $5K and up for a crate. and then there is the $1500 in custom accessory drive to fit the narrow c1 engine bay. Yeah I know I can junkyard pull a 5.3 for like $500 or whatever, but dad's 75 and not in the mood for digging around junkyards anymore and I have too much on my plate to do it. Plus he's writing the checks and wants a warranty and a drop in solution. the other reason he wants an old school SBC is so we can reuse a lot of the original "dress up parts" on the car like the 9 fin fuelie valve covers and the radio shield on the distributor, plus the accessories. the car is manual steering, manual drum brakes, and weighs just about 2800lbs wet. the old original 283 made about 300hp and moved the car out just fine so we don't need 400+ something when the brakes aren't gonna keep up.

Hey guys, Quick back story: years ago my father and I restored a 1957 Vette. December build date, 283 Fuelie, early 4.11 positraction, 3 speed car. The car has been sitting for a while in storage and something happened to it and now the numbers matching engine is no good. Rather then go through the trouble and expense of rebuilding the old 283 block and early fuel injection unit (which isn't that great anyway), Dad and I have decided that we're just going to swap in an old school 350 crate motor and a carb and drive the thing. Specs: - We will be keeping the 4.11 rear and 3 speed trans. - We want the engine to make between 300-325 hp - we would like a warranty - 4 bolt mains preferred - would like to keep it to $4500 and under Questions: - good source to buy one from? Are GM Goodwrench engines still a thing? - better to buy carb to pan or a long block and source my own headers/manifold? trying to do the least amount of work for the least amount of money. - warranties any good? my father seems hell bent on getting a warranty for an engine he didn't spec thinking we can just pull it out and ship it back but not sure how it actually works. - any other thoughts? maybe talk me out of a crate mill for something better?

PM sent.

If you can get me some measurements, I could probably 3d print you some custom logo ones if you like. I just printed a similar cap for the swing-arm pivot on my BMW motorcycle so I have a generic cap file I can work from.

bummer I have subs to both already. Maybe I can parlay it into a MOD sub or something.

Did they say what will happen to the subscribers? I have been a long time Car Craft subscriber and just renewed for another 2 years not that long ago. I was sad to see Popular Hot Rodding go, and now car craft, it's a bummer for sure.

Are Karens a pokemon? Once a Karen speaks to enough managers does she level up and become a Sue and her CRV becomes a Pilot? Instead of Pokeballs do you trap them in dream catchers and red wine glasses?

In my experience, the police are rarely anybody to take insurance advice from. Often they don't know anything but because they are in a position of authority they still feel compelled to give an answer. Let me ask this: if the driver of the car destroyed his fence, you don't think that driver's insurance would cover the damage? No fault usually has a a very limited scope and clear property damage is usually exempt. NY is a no fault state, but I was able to collect 100% for the damage to my car when I got rear-ended and T-boned. I am not well read on michigan law, and michigan could be one of those states that property damage (including vehicle damage) is not exempt from no fault, but you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Also this primer from the government says he can recover from their ins company: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_ofis_ip202_25083_7.pdf Show that link to your friend, then have him get the ins info from the police and start the claim. most states give a 30-45 day grace period and will even send you a notice telling you the last date of coverage, so good call on this one.

great! I will take some pics and send them over.

Why is he going through his insurance or rather not going through his cancelled insurance? It was a parked car, even if the other car was stolen he should still file a claim with the other car's insurance company. If it was a police chase then the police will have the information on the other vehicle, just contact them.

Hey all, I am working on this VW beetle powered motorcycle I picked up over the summer, and one of the challenges I am working through at the moment is that the engine was missing it's electric starter. I was able to get a new starter, but because of the custom bellhousing, the special spacer needed to run a stock starter is also missing. After looking at a few running VW powered motorcycles using the same 1970's conversion kit, it became obvious to me that the spacer is just a 3" billet chunk of aluminum cut to shape and drilled for holes for the bolts to pass through. Is there someone the forum recommends that could cut me a spacer if I bring them a template and some measurements? The shape is roughly the same shape as an individual exhaust gasket so not complex and I doubt there is machining necessary, just one big hole and two smaller bolt holes.

how did they notify you that the claim was denied? if it was by email or letter it might have the process or contact spelled out on that. if not, just call the customer service help line and ask.

Pretty much what I would say has already been said. Any claims process will have an appeal process, it may be hidden in the fine print of the paperwork but it's there. Figure out how to appeal the decision and follow their protocols.

as fake as Karen's nails.

I was having a conversation with a buddy who races a fox body and I asked him about ford rears. He mentioned that 1990-1994 Ranger and Explorer 8.8 rear ends run 10" drum brakes, they switched to disc rear in 1995. He told me that if you wanted a drum rear 8.8 you should look for a 1991-1994 explorer 8.8 (the spline count is higher than the ranger axle) with drum brakes and a trak lok because 3.55 and 3.73 gears were the ratios that came with LSD. personally, I think you should work toward 4 wheel discs, but those rears are cheap (I did a quick search - maybe $200 at most) and you can always upgrade it later. Just wanted to relay the info as an option.