Geeto67

makes sense from a labor standpoint. I just think at some point you are going to want an overdrive transmission and doing that with a mopar big block is not cheap. It's either a manual conversion, a GV overdrive unit, or a dakota A518 trans and an expensive adapter from JVX. aluminum heads are nice, and if you paint them most people don't notice they aren't stock.

As a serial used bmw owner, if you are looking for something different - have you considered a VW GTi? My Brother and Wife have both had MK5 platform cars (GTi, Audi A3) and have both had very good luck with them. Plus they come in stick (something the bmw diesel cars don't do). The thing about German cars is they work best with preventative maintenance. they aren't expensive to own unless you start to defer maintenance and then things start to add up. Also, that sometimes requires you to go above the dealer's recommendations like doing an oil change every 5K instead of 10K and actually changing out the gear lube because no car component is "lifetime fill" if you expect it to make it to 200K.

yes because you are whining about it (and also that time you threatened to come to my house and do harm to my family). Any other questions?

To be perfectly honest, and knowing that this is your lady's car...I am kinda baffled as to why you don't just find a 5.9 Magnum powered 2wd pickup and throw the whole drivetrain into the car. You get EFI, overdrive, some weight savings (not much, but some), and parts availability. I bet you could buy a whole donor car/truck for the cost of what you are looking to spend on heads for the 400. That being said, are the heads 906 casting heads? if so, use those.

Right here: that is you claiming victim status because people don't agree with your opinion. You are a victim of being called names. Stop being such a whiny victim, own your shit.

Families didn't need to be separated to have a zero tolerance policy, it wasn't an explicit requirement of any immigration law. Prior to it implementing it was viewed as a positive side effect of prosecuting the parents because it would discourage border crossing. Keep in mind we didn't "send everybody back", we sent the parents to federal prison in the US to serve prision sentences and then deported them, and basically incarcerated the children under the care of the US without trial with no plan to deport or otherwise release. So which is worse? releasing them into the US or putting them in US federal prison where taxpayers pay that expense. Almost 3000 children were separated, only about 400 parents were deported (after serving prison sentences for which taxpayers paid for), and right now about 1/5 of the children still remain separated from their parents and under US care. This is better than "Catch and release" (which really wasn't "catch and release" at all but catch detain as a family and then deport or release pending court date)? W Bush tried this in 2005 (operation streamline) and abandoned the program when he realized it was a horrible idea. Even his policy had a carve out to keep from separating whole families at the border. Obama built family detention centers during his administration, so there literally was no reason to separate families at all other than to discourage others from crossing I don't know that you can say nobody wants kids in cages. The Executive branch that put this in place made a conscious decision to do this unnecessary action and chose it, then defended it publicly, and only suspended it when the unpopularity of the action threatened trumps campaign. They wanted this, they had no plan to do anything but this, don't make excuses for bad behavior and poor planning by saying nobody wants this but what can you do - turns out you can do not this and still have a zero tolerance policy.

eh....maybe....remember the republicans hold the power in both the house and senate, , and they have both underwritten the current executive administration's decision to do this, as well as been slow to act in response (or not at all). Since the 1990's it has been a conservative position that enforcement needs to be absolute and this is what absolute looks like. It's hard to argue that they aren't getting exactly what they want and are happy that a political outsider like trump gets to take the heat for it.

Can you be specific about which programs you are referring to? because as far as I am aware the only ones that are doing the things you don't like are the ones that take care of children, the elderly, and the disabled. What programs are you referring to that don't serve those people, but also don't have time and financial limits? The reason we don't typically trust charities to fill in is three fold: 1) because historically speaking charities have a pretty awful track record of abuse of the system with very little accountability 2) Sometimes these programs are implemented to address the root cause of another issue that is within the government's wheelhouse like crime, healthcare, or public utility. 3) because sometimes to assist in these issues there needs to be legislation as well as money to fix the problem. Case in point the opiate epidemic we have on our hands. Rehabilitation programs are a necessary part but so is legislating the Pharma companies to hold them accountable for the crisis they caused. To be fair you say a lot of things where the facts don't bear out to support what you are saying. Pointing out your ignorance isn't calling you a name, it's stating a fact - you choose to take it as an insult and frankly I don't care to correct you on this because you advocate people talking to you like this. When you say things and get all huffy that they are contextually racist and someone points that out, it's the other person's problem not yours and apparently victim mentality. So to your above statement I say, stop being such a whiny victim and having a victim mentality when the big bad "liberals" call out your ignorant statement and contextually racist shit. Take some responsibility for your statements. if you are going to say shitty things, at least know why people are saying they are shitty, if you are saying something and someone calls out your ignorance, maybe find out why they are saying that. Stop being such a victim. geez.

This is a bullshit argument from you because you don't believe in social welfare spending. So literally you are saying "we should spend tax money on our own people, except we shouldn't spend it on them either". Seriously dude, pick a lane.

Germany...isn't that the country that conservatives love to talk about as having a uuuugggeeee refugee/migrant problem we don't want? Unless you are saying those are all lies....because well they kind of are. um...no. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was put in place in response to the immigration of 123,000 Chinese immigrants in 1870s. that made up 1/3 of the immigrants coming into the US at that time and spawned all sorts of nasty fearmongering like the "yellow peril". Remember, until 1870 only "free white persons of good moral character" could be citizens - either by birth or naturalization. Do I need to remind you that "white" in the 1790's did not include Italians, Jews, Asians, Native Americans, and other people that were not english protestant descent? German, Irish, English did make up the majority, but it is not a large majority. Hardly "drop in the bucket". the problem with this era is by not considering them citizens, lots of other groups have been mostly erased or downplayed in history. We remember the Chinese and Italians because they had a significant impact on our culture, blacks because we fought a war over slavery, native Americans because we fought several wars with them (and still manage to erase a lot of the horrors), and the irish because every conservative loves to bring up them as the shining counter example of white victimhood. There were plenty of other people that we have pretty much forgotten that were here in significant numbers. Ever eat an Al Pastor taco? yeah that exists because of mass Lebanese immigration into mexico and California in the late 1800's and early 1900s. funny how we don't talk about them. fun fact: until the 1960's most Arab immigrants were marked as Syrian despite the majority actually being from Lebanon. Today's money, and depending on the location and whether you were actually buying a ticket (price is from england). If you were a slave being brought here, it cost you nothing, and cost your traders very little because they owned the boat (hence why it was a profitable business). Lots of firms in china ran discount passage which accounted for the large influx during the gold rush. Are they committing the most crimes though? Seems to me that there is plenty of data to support that immigrants don't commit any more or less crimes than natural citizens. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/is-illegal-immigration-linked-to-more-or-less-crime/ I think what you are doing here is confusing correlation with causation. Ethnic minorities make up a large section of the poor in this country, and poverty tends to be the driver of crime. Saying that crime happens because they are latin immigrants is just straight bullshit. I have to ask, how is it that I run into so many "Libertarian" types that claim to be history buffs, and yet so many of them cannot demonstrate a basic functional knowledge of US history? I mean, they teach grade schools kids about 1800's immigration and Ellis island and all that stuff, how do people forget that was a thing?

also the Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Russians (esp Jews escaping persecution of the czar), people escaping the constant warring of eastern europe, And let's not forget those whose boat ride was paid for against their will (yes I mean slaves who were Indonesian, African, pacific islander, etc..), and those who were sent here from other British and Dutch colonies because they were criminals there (1/4 of all immigrants to the US in the mid-late 1700s were transport convicts). I mean, is there a group you think didn't emigrate here? Also there are also those central and south americans who just walked here because, well California was part of their country for a good long while, and even when it wasn't we didn't exactly stop free movement. And it's not a "bit of coin" - the cost of steerage class on ships in the 1800's cost about $670 per person. Most poor people could raise that amount (and did). We have had serious, non-racist, laws on this starting since around the 1900's and the only thing "tough" enforcement has proven is that it causes the government to do inhumane things in its enforcement. Care to name some of these "greatest" countries? Other countries handle immigration is a completely different way from the US, and far more humanely, but none of them are what I would call "tough". It's hard to make a comparison as to who is tough vs who is not tough, and honestly I wouldn't even know the metric since the approaches are so different. It's like comparing apples to motorcycles. A lot of them recognize and embrace that there is a population that just seeks work and not citizenship, which the US both pretends doesn't happen and also profits highly from (while allowing a form of indentured servitude because fuck them they are immigrants). Here, do some reading: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/16/upshot/comparing-immigration-policies-across-countries.html https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130630-immigration-reform-world-refugees-asylum-canada-japan-australia-sweden-denmark-united-kingdom-undocumented-immigrants/

Um...never. People have been immigrating here for over 400 years and it hasn't happened yet. 1882 was the first immigration exclusion act, so historically speaking this is a relatively young issue. Oh and let's not forget that the US was a prison colony for England for roughly 100 years (1607 to 1780). That's 50,000 convicted felons mostly in the mid 1700s. this idea that the US is going to go to shit after 400 years of proving that immigration actually improves the country is literally the nonsense of republican nightmares. You country of birth was fucked since the first Dutch colonists set foot on it in 1652. Yeah it mishandled the "un-fucking" in the 1980's but give it time - the mishandling of the "un-fucking" of this country happened over 100 years ago and we are still dealing with it's effects. These things take time. Oops, missed this greg, sorry. FWIW I thought you pretty much hit the high points. So...just so I am clear....NOBODY wants to talk about how US foreign policy has made both the US steel industry and the US automotive industry noncompetitive in the world market and that is somehow winning?

right on que, it's like you are almost.....programmed....

and they certainly wouldn't try to weaponize #metoo by digging up an already known incident out of his past to try and re-litigate it in the court of public opinion because that would be going too far, right? oh wait.... https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/cory-booker-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegations/index.html oopsie....looks like they did exactly that. here is the problem with being a conservative and trying to point out some dubious moral activity with the other team - everybody knows you guys don't really care about the #metoo movement, or government corruption, or any number of other trumped up moral quandaries. This sort of whataboutisim is obvious and frankly stupid - it doesn't immediately impute credibility to the person saying "what about clinton" or "what about booker" it is just a flag waving "douchebag here". If any conservative really cared about #metoo then they wouldn't have made the choice that "president open sexual assault" was the lesser of two evils. So tariff's and ford huh.....? nobody has an opinion? Where's Proud Boy Brandon to tell me that nobody buying Us steel is actually winning and then call me fat?

still waiting for a credible news source to actually report on it. so far all you have is one anonymous twitter post and every right wing loon pontificating on it. You know something is suspect when even fox news won't touch it. I think Laura Ingraham even said this was bunk. If you are getting your news from places like "americanthinker.com", "zerohedge.com" or "thegatewaypundit.com" - chances are you are the problem and not Booker.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-22/ford-says-trump-tariffs-makes-u-s-steel-costliest-in-the-world Is this what winning feels like? because it sure feels the same as loosing.

"when is it time to dump it"? when it stops being fun. sounds like that's a long way away. no harm in doing a full diagnostics for funsies, just have to be careful of while you are in there syndrome. modern FI engines don't wear rings like old carb'ed engines because the cyl's aren't being washed down in gasoline. If there is a problem you are going to have to find the root cause of it too. IIRC the last time you had the head off those cyl still had some of the factory cross hatch visible but that was like 2 years ago. If you want to see what's what, do a comp test, leakdown, fuel pressure test, and air/fuel. Also read the plugs. You can borrow my fuel pressure test kit again, and my compression tester, but I don't have a leakdown test kit or a stoich gauge.

No manual trans option. lame.

yeah the guy that was born on third base but won't shut up about how he hit a triple? yeah he seems trustoworthy: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.2078a80f03a9 http://www.factcheck.org/person/donald-trump/ I will say this - he was right about creating jobs, an entire industry formed around his propensity for bullshit.

No that is what a stupid person would assume. So it is fitting that you articulate it. A smart person would look at policies and trends. The impact of federal economic policies take time to show up in the market place, but even during the second part of Obama administration, the economy hit the same numbers. Trump's corporate tax cuts have certainly contributed to the boom economy continuing to roll along, but he is in no way the origin of the growth like you are he are claiming. Same with job growth and long employment rate - he his doing his best to keep the good times going but he and his policies didn't originate the trends. Just because you feed the dog and groom the dog, doesn't mean you can claim you "made" the dog. And this nonsense with the tariffs, which we should see the results of sometime mid-late 2019, aren't going to help the economy rolling along. Whether you like him or not, Obama inherited a seriously fucked economy, fucked by the W administration's deregulation and the greed of the financial industry, and turned it around for this country. That's an amazing feat, and one that continues to bear out a strong legacy, long after he has left office. Trump? it will be 2020 before we really know what his economic legacy will be

Continuing the growth trend of the obama administration, so....literally...thanks obama. from the article: So it is growing in spite of Trump's actions, not because of it. Also from the article.

+1 Can we talk about this for a second. This is literally GOP porn - in that it is both an unrealistic fantasy and probably full of STD's 1) there are three people in this picture who are still alive, The Bushes and Trump. GW and W despise Trump and likely wouldn't be caught dead drinking in a room with him let alone being friendly. 2) Trump in the picture is painted as if having lost a ton of weight, and also HW isn't depicted as the decrepit crippled old man he currently is. 3) Eisenhower and the Rockefeller republicans are politically distinct from Reagan, Bush I and II, trump, and the modern republican party. They are more in line with Lincoln and Roosevelt who would be considered solidly progressive in today's political landscape. 4) Nixon was a political pariah after his resignation. no politician would be in the same room as him. 5) Gerald Ford was also an outcast from the republican party for both pardoning Nixon and changing his position on social issues in the 1990's and 2000's. 6) Three people in the painting, Reagan, Nixon, and Ford, are the architects of modern gun control laws in america. It's not hard to see why trump likes it: it makes him look skinny and healthy and also it suggests he is historically notable and not infamous. It makes it seem like Roosevelt and Lincoln are his peers and equals when in reality he's probably closest to Nixon. From a taste perspective this is the definition of tacky. But I don't really expect taste from a guy who decorates everything in gold.

meh, TL;DR.

ignore you? nah, just waiting for you to make another chicken shit threat against me again because those are fun. It's super fun when you try to save face and smooth things over in pm too. self clearance any brake calipers lately?

yes to both. Go back through the multitude of pages of this thread. Kickass and I had this exact discussion like a month ago, and there was a ton of data discussed. I don't really feel like revisiting it for a lazy troll like bstowers. esp when his own data bears out some of what I was saying. Context is important, If you go back and read what I said, I was very specific to say that the more income a person makes and spends on a child the less "good parenting" makes a difference. That is not the same thing as saying across the board good parenting delivers marginal returns, and I was quite clear to point out that in lower income families it makes a much bigger difference. I don't consider things you pay other's to teach your kids good parenting, because implicit in that idea is that every poor person is a shitty parent just because they are too poor to afford tutoring and coaches. Maybe you do and you have to live with character flaw. Part of the reason wealthier kids are more successful isn't because their parent's are "better parents", it's because their parents can afford to pay for programs to help them be successful. The federal government used to pick up some of the slack for that in federal spending through things like the TRIO programs and supplemental education services but the money doesn't flow like it used to. fuck you. make me. Run a search you lazy shit. yeah except I am not advocating white supremacy, overt racism, misogyny, or fucking over the poor and working class in this country. Apparently you are in for all those things.