Geeto67

fixed it for you, remember it's a mustang

I won't be, but you know what else I didn't do? bore the shit out of everyone who would listen about how I want to get a v8 mustang GT for over a year now. Literally a year, not figuratively. At this point a v6 would be anti-climatic.

you bought a v6. whomp whomp. http://www.lasertimepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pacman12.gif Dude it's the midwest. Asking people to be rude to your face is like asking them not to root for ohio state, or not call it pop, or not fuck their sheep, or not say ope. Ain't gonna happen.

I don't know any voodoo but I am hoping for the <10% chance shift that pushes the rain to sat since I have to pick up the sportster this weekend and don't want to be riding in the rain with TKC80 twinduros and no front fender.

I just figured you needed more than a 1/4 mile and a running start to get it out of second gear :gabe:

sure, why not, it will be fun. If we do it from a roll on 270 it will be fine because neither car will break the speed limit.

5 of the 6 motorcycles I have here now run and are road legal. But it's supposed to piss down rain hard on sat so I may just wait for the post CCC thrashing that will happen here about a clapped out SN95 v6 brostang. Also Jeep isn't stock. I'll run it against your $150 truck - bring an hour glass so we can record times....lol.

He's going to show up at cars and coffee where ceremoniously we will see his new car and pour maraschino cherries on him to symbolize that he broke his cherry into v8-dom....until we see it's a v6 at which point everyone will just quietly put the lids back on the cherry jars and shuffle away quietly muttering in disappointment. wait...that's just my CR fanfic He's going to show up at cars and coffee with a v6 something (probably moosetank and autolol too) and everyone is going to shake his hand and tell him congratulations and then talk endless trash behind his back esp in light of this thread.

Ok so all you need to do is take your same docs to the polling place and prove your identity, what's the big deal? Why are you adding another step that literally adds nothing beneficial to the process and hurts 11% of the population?

"Fox news grandpas" is the name of my Sammy Hagar Cover Band. That is all.

Except all states already ask the voters to prove they are eligible (and therefore have a "vested" interest). Why ask them to prove it in a harder way that doesn't add to combating voter fraud? I should add here that there is nothing in the constitution requiring an individual to be a citizen to vote in a federal election, and for a long time (~200 years) legal resident aliens could vote in federal elections. It wasn't until 1996 (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) that citizenship became a requirement in voter eligibility in federal elections. When it comes to voting, there are already no questions as to who you are as every state has some method of proving identity. What do you think making it harder for some people to vote will add? Also, "should" is not the law. Just because you think everyone should have a physical ID, or a specific voter ID, doesn't mean they are required to. As long as they can prove their identity what's wrong with them having access to voting? I should add - why do you hate freedom bro? As long as you are able to prove your identity, what's wrong with having the freedom to do that in a way different than a specific government issued ID?

What problem specifically? as I have said before (and provided links) - at the ballot voter fraud is rare. You understand that in addition to the poor, this includes the elderly, the physically disabled, and the highly functioning mentally disabled who have not been declared mentally incompetent by a court. You say that everyone has a right to vote....but these are not the statements of someone who believes it. The existing voting laws in most states still require proof of identity, and are somewhat accessible to almost everyone (Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia being the exceptions where it is much more difficult to vote). I think proving your identity is an expectation greater than zero and has done a pretty good job of keeping voter fraud at bay. Increasing the requirement of ID doesn't improve security, and only makes it harder for vulnerable people to vote. Why do you want to make it harder for people to exercise their right? If it is proven not to decrease an already low fraud rate, and it is proven to have a much larger disproportionate negative impact, whats the point in doing it? Tell me Tim, if it hurts Americans and doesn't help prevent voter fraud - why are you so gung-ho for it? Is it because the people who are disenfranchised don't vote for your team? I ask myself that question literally every time I read something you write.

Maybe he bought an actual pony? I mean it would be inline with an Rx-8 as far as impractical transportation decisions go.

Serious Question: Do you think every American citizen has a right to vote? It's a factor but it is not the only negative. Due to years of mistrust with voter suppression, just having strict ID requirements means lower voter turn out. Let's add in the fact that these are administered by the state, and usually marginally trained volunteers and you will have a problem. You are a terrible human being. For the record that's 11% of the population that doesn't have ID. That's not how government assistance works. Furthermore every single ID requirement bill isn't coming with funding for people to get those ID's, specifically because those who are proposing it don't want those voters to turn out. the chances that weren't there to begin with? Please prove this point with actual statistics. What fraud do you think this actually prevents that isn't already prevented by the existing requirements. how? you still haven't provided for them to get it through any government funding. No voter ID bill is proposing to pay for the poor to get voter ID. Also you are still a horrible human being. You can be pretty sure, but you would be wrong. All you need to do is to prove your identity which is not the same as a specific ID card. There are no less than 21 different documents you can produce to prove your identity for a job, many of them as simple as a voter registration card, a homeland security authorization to work, Native American Tribal documents, social security card, etc...none of these things are considered a "traditional ID" Again, requiring a specific voter ID is not the same as proving your identity. Here is a list of all the voter identification requirements by state, please point to me the one that doesn't require you to prove your identity: https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state Keep in mind not providing ID at the polls is not the same thing as not proving identity - NY for example requires you to prove identity at registration and then verifies your identity before you vote. If you show up and your registration is not verified, they will ask you to prove who you are. here are the ways states with non-ID requirements verify you are who you say you are on voting day (in addition to registration): http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-verification-without-id-documents.aspx

Again, prove that it does more good than harm.

you sure you don't want to add the bilderberg group, the Shadow government, or the New World Order to that list? yes but not everything you dislike is automatically government corruption. Also, while corruption is unethical, not everything that is corruption is illegal. Sounds like you are just cynical and say "well if everyone is corrupt then I might as well have someone who is corrupt in my favor". You are entitled to that position, but some of us like to hold those in power to higher standards and expectations. People can say what they want, it only matters what they can prove. I say let them try. The Republican party certainly tried with Obama. And you know what, if it turns out to be nothing then the american people win. If it turns into something, then the system works and the american people win. The people only lose if nobody tries and therefore holds the president accountable. I'm all for trying - it's good for America! Obvious to whom? those who were so happy to look the other way because their team won? eh...the investigation needed to happen. tough titty you don't like it but you can't claim the moral high ground of it being lies where the most common charge tied to this investigation stems from lying and cover up on the part of trumps team.

If you can prove it does more good then harm I'll get on board. But you have to actually prove it. With actual statistics. I'll wait.

No. No state has a law that REQUIRES you to have an ID at all times on your person. Some states do have a requirement that you be able to prove your identity, and most of the acceptable forms of proof are the same as accepted by the polling place. Having to provide a specific ID is not the same thing as proving your identity. you are required to have a license on your person when you are doing a licensed activity, but not everyone drives so not everyone needs a drivers license on them at all time. I get why you don't understand this, you just lack the knowledge. You think not having to present an ID means not having to prove who you are which is not true. Yeah we even when to the same school and come from the same neighborhood, decades apart. You know what's really funny to me? the rest of the nation finding out what a scumbag he was when NY'ers have known it since the 80's. by your logic, it's funny that you are not a murderous cult leader since Charles Manson is from Ohio. then again...you are often angry and thin skinned.....

They, meaning the FBI, set out to investigate a situation which looked suspect, and did exactly that. The conclusion may be unsatisfactory to those hoping it would result in a charge against the president, but that doesn't mean the investigation didn't accomplish what it set out to do. It uncovered several crimes, and more importantly it revealed a startling number of people attempting to cover up otherwise legal behavior - which even you have to admit is a strange thing to do. you keep saying "they" like this is the doing of one party. This is the Department of Justice and the FBI, and more specifically politically republican members of those organizations and several Trump appointees. Yeah maybe members of one political party unfairly attached their desires to the outcome hoping for the worst case scenario, but the DOJ doesn't work for them and neither does the FBI. Even if they were "suspect" they would be suspect of helping their own party. It's bullshit to play the partisan card. How many thieves do you know are geniuses? I think this is more like he saw an already broken store front window and decided to walk off with a TV. I'll never say he's a genius, but I will always recognize that he is opportunistic. It wasn't a secret that Russia was going to meddle in the election - they try every election, and it wasn't even news that they were trying really hard this year because of the Magnisnsky act. No you are confusing the two concepts and misunderstanding my question. It always matters that foreign powers meddle in any election and that should be investigated. That's not specific to Trump, it could have been anybody. What is specific to him are his terrible policies, and assuming he his not an agent of Russia doesn't fix that. You continue to ignore the larger problems with his presidency. Even if he didn't do anything illegal, there are clear instances where his actions are undeniably unethical. And that is the "Does it matter" question: "Does it matter to you, Tim, that the president is still unethical, even if it can't be proven what he did was illegal?" because it really seems like you are a "I'll take a win for my team anyway I can get it" person. You don't think Obama gave a fuck-stick about your issues sounds more accurate. At the very least he was more ethical than our current administration, but you don't seem that concerned with what's "right", just what benefits you. well conspiracy theorists rarely change their stripes. Still, the impact of the "hot mic" and...say...I dunno...using NATO to keep Russian military action in check are two different things. I don't truck in speculation, I truck in what can be proven. In this case the investigation showed it couldn't be proven and I am ready to move on. It's not speculation that the Russians are doing everything they can to overturn the Magnisky Act, It's not speculation that they meddled in our election and did it successfully, and those things are out there and still need to be addressed. I just doubt they will be addressed by the person who benefits most from it, even if he didn't plan it. I'd love to be proven wrong on this point, but I don't expect it - current track record doesn't suggest it as a likely outcome. Some also say he's incompetent. I tend to take an Occam's razor approach to that, esp in the absence of proof he is an agent of Israel.

I am not sure I understand the question as there seem to be a lot of concepts smooshed up against each other. Russian interference =/= at the ballot box voter fraud in terms of risk profile and consequences. Let's be clear: Successful foreign government interference with our election is bad. Voter fraud is bad. These are different kinds of bad with different risk profiles, don't pull that whataboutism nonsense trying to draw a false equivalency between the two. Except this is not even a remotely true statement. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf - voter impersonation fraud rarely happens - voter misrepresentation fraud rarely happens - the documented cases of voter fraud at the ballot site do not happen in statistically significant numbers to affect a presidential election. Where you do see voter fraud in growing is outside the polling place. Vote by mail fraud in North Carolina where members of one political party went around and collected unfilled out mail in ballots from people and then filled them out and sent them in is problematic. but even then it was a small isolated incident and while it had an effect at a local level impact at the national would be minuscule. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/08/674543576/voting-by-mail-is-on-the-rise-but-could-alleged-n-c-election-fraud-change-that you know what is bad? voter suppression, which is real, does happen in significant numbers to affect an election, and voter ID schemes are always a part of. There is no proof that having a specific "voter ID" or even having stricter ID standards has any effect on the small amount of voter fraud it is designed to protect. There is however, mountains of evidence that stricter ID requirements have a disproportionate effect on racial minorities, the elderly, the poor, and first time voters: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/how-voter-id-laws-discriminate-study/517218/ http://acluwv.org/voter-id-laws-bad-education-best-defense/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-about-voter-id-laws/ Add into the fact that voter suppression tends to favor conservative political candidates and its not hard to see why Republican politicians keep pushing these requirements that do more harm than good. But it isn't good for the country as a whole. The newest round of voter ID laws being pushed aren't any different from poll taxes, literacy tests, and other things that the voting rights act of 1965 did away with. It isn't like our existing voter registration schemes are ineffective. I would say the low fraud rate shows they are pretty effective, and they were designed to be accessible . Introducing something that does not increase any benefit, but introduces a specific amount of harm along one party's line - well that's good for nobody.

Dude, you really need to get over that. If there is one thing FCA gets right it's the wrangler. Sure they fuck up nearly everything else but there is a reason why wranglers are one of the best vehicles at holding value over everything else FCA makes, and it isn't because of fanboi love and instagram likes. It should be a hit, but fer got sakes man, have some standards. GM will do what it always does: wait 2 years to see if there is room in the market and then release either a really good car nobody will buy because it is too expensive, or a mediocre also ran that will outsell both. but let's talk about this statement about the "wrangler" running un-opposed. The original wrangler was the "Jeep" market segment - what eventually became the compact SUV market. from 1987-2006 it's competitors weren't the full size bronco or the K blazer, it was stuff like the S-10 blazer 2 door, the Bronco II, the Suzuki Samauri, Geo Tracker, First Gen Ford Explorer 2 door, etc. It was always opposed, there were lots of attempts to do what the jeep did but more comfortable or with more power or smaller and more efficiently - and some outsold the little jeep, but it was a reliable seller and kept soldiering on. It has the luxury of being the desirable car in a segment nobody otherwise wants, by outlasting everything there. The 4 door JK unlimited isn't "unopposed" - it's an alternative for Tahoe buyers who wanted 4x4 capability but got left behind by luxury (it certainly is in the same price bracket as the tahoe), but the wrangler pivoted and is no longer a small or even a "midsize" SUV. It's a fullsize now, which is in itself interesting. I am happy to see something else in the market place and a fresh approach, but competitors come and go for the wrangler. I wish ford well, but I'd rather have a jeep.

Manafort absolutely represented Russian interests. It wasn't a crime for him to be a lobbyist for Russian private interests, but it is a crime for him to hide it. He probably wouldn't have been hired to the campaign if it was public knowledge like it was supposed to be. He also laundered money and continued lobbying for Russian interests while working for the campaign. There certainly was smoke, they just can't prove fire. Same with Flynn, he lied about doing his job, and lied about being a lobbyist for Turkey. The point of this whole thing was to ferret out how many had connections like that in the campaign, and it seems like a lot. Sure maybe it didn't go all the way to the top, but you can't say it wasn't a successful investigation. He absolutely stole the election, it just can't be proved that he had an agreement with the Russian Government to do so. It's not in question that the Russians interfered in the election, and it is not in question that some of the Russian interference was specifically targeted to help his campaign. They just can't prove that he agreed with them to do it. Does him just benefiting from a bad situation instead of planning it make it better? It doesn't make him a better president in any other metric? Yes foreign governments have been meddling in the politics of other countries for centuries. The Romans did it, the Greeks, the holy roman empire, All of Europe for a millennia, the US has done it and created the fucked situation that is the middle east. Russia fucking with our election isn't new, being successful at disrupting it is. Again, they targeted Donald Trump, a candidate that specifically under-performed because he was most sympathetic to their interests, and would also cause the most disruption. so I ask you, does it matter that whether he actually had an agreement with them to do so or not? the end result was the same and It doesn't make him a better president. Are you at all worried about having a leader that wasn't really chosen free of influence from the Russians and doesn't really care about the american people? Are you concerned about having a country that is sympathetic to it's biggest global rival and is allowing it's power to grow while American influence shrinks? Whether you like it or not, I don't think the Russian election meddling would have been as successful if Donald Trump wasn't who he was, and he wouldn't have gotten as far if this hand' been a year where Russia was spurred into a full court press by the Magnisky act. Even if he isn't an agent of russia, he's always going to have the asterix of being the Russian installed president because he accidentally stumbled into the perfect storm of shit that got him elected.

First off, neither of us has read the final report because it is not public, so we don't really know what it actually says, only interpretation from Barr and what has already publicly happened. The point of the investigation was to figure out how much Russian involvement there was in the Trump campaign. Collusion was one possibility, and probably the worst case scenario, but it wasn't the sole purpose of the investigation. I will agree it was the thing that critics of the president were hoping for, but that was a high hope. There are still plenty of charges against campaign members specifically for being involved with and representing foreign governments so....it's not true to say they have nothing to do with Russian collusion. Let me ask this question: Is it somehow "better" knowing that he still benefited from successful Russian Interference in the election? It's a fact the Russians interfered in our election, and it's also a fact that they interfered specifically to benefit Trump. Does it make you sleep better at night knowing that he didn't ask them to, but merely just exploited something bad that was already going on?

I dunno man, 34 indictments, most of which have led to convictions, mean it wasn't a fraud. These are all people connected to or working within the trump campaign. It's an undisputed fact that Russia meddled in our 2016 election, what can't be proven is how much trump himself knew about it and agreed to it. You realize that Trump's only defense to this is that he's stupid, right? Any other politician and we would hold them responsible for the actions of their hired employees, but this guy you seem willing to say "oh no, it's fine he didn't know what his own people were doing, how can he be held accountable for that?". Either he was in on it or he was the worlds biggest dupe. I'm ok with agreeing he's the world biggest dupe if you are.

Generally speaking, the economy is like the tide - can't stop the ebb and flow, but historically though economic policy a president can influence it. We saw this in the recovery from the financial crisis with the Obama administration, measured stimulus initiatives, auto and bank bailouts, increased banking regulations, etc.. lead to a steady gradual growth on all fronts from 2010 to now. so you can't stop the tide from coming in or going out, but you can soften the blow of the change in direction. Where I begin to worry is with the consequences of some of Trump's economic initiatives and whether they will increase the severity of the effects of an incoming recession. There is a lot of tax money that isn't there this year and even in prosperous times we are looking at a growing deficit. Not having the money to pay for government programs isn't going to stop those government programs (including the military), which may cause a sharp tax increase. Trump has been increasingly hard on the Fed and suppressing interest rates, which can prop of the economy artificially for a little but can also have much more negative impacts further down the road. We saw a similar situation with LBJ in the 60's who did the same thing - leaned on the fed chair to keep interest rates low and the end result was the malaise of the 1970's with increasing, almost rampant inflation, stagnation in the economy, and record high unemployment.