Geeto67

I hear and mostly agree with what you are saying about the power struggle and consent, but convince me how the personal sex lives, specifically out of wedlock consensual sex, are relevant to their advocacy of public policy? I wish the clinton conversation focused on the abuse of authority aspect, but that's largely lost in the public discourse where Clinton is brought up. This last election, it was constantly brought up as a character flaw that Hillary would stay with Bill after such a transgression. The power struggle? that was an after thought at best. I don't think what Bill did was appropriate either, and he had a track record of abusing his position of power which has colored how people look at his legacy as president. But at the same time these comparative morality conversations around the "technically" consensual sexual activities of our politicians with respect to their marriages is just a bogus red herring.

I mean are they really "terrible" people because they like to have sex with women whom they are married to? Does that really play into their role as advocates at all? I honestly don't know why people fixate on this stuff - it's pointless. America is so puritan sometimes. Politicians can have consensual, of age, sex with whomever they like so long as they can balance a budget, broker trade deals, and advance civil rights and liberties in this country. Why do we care so much?

Swoon. You know, jaguar built their own restomod factory car - it's called the 2001-2003 XJR

side note for a second, do new challengers come with LSD in the base R/T trim? Anyway back to colors...I have been thinking about my GTO a lot lately and something I have been going back and forth on is the color scheme. So this might be the place to ask it. The car is originally burgundy with a black vinyl roof and a black interior. Thing is, without A/C I hate the black interior. I was thinking about changing the interior to red because I love red 1960's interiors and also I saw a pic of one recently and it looked pretty unique....so thoughts? Burgundy with black: Burgundy with Red: http://www.collectorcarads.com/Picture1/IMG_2208.jpg http://www.collectorcarads.com/Picture4/IMG_2216_1.jpg I am also not too fond of vinyl roofs but you don't see them as much any more and it's kind of what the car had. Thoughts on that as well?

That's F8 green. It's a heritage color for the original Dodges and Plymouths stemming back to 1968-70. I think the plymouth color was called "Ivy Green" and dodge was just called "dark green metallic". I knew a guy in high school whose dad had a 1969 superbee in that color with a black stripe and black vinyl roof, it was dead sexy. I saw a charger and a challenger in that color over the weekend and my jaw hit the floor it was so pretty. Performance dodge in Delaware has a stick challenger R/T in that color I might go look at in person this weekend just to temp myself. this is kind of what it looked like, but not a roadrunner: http://a12mopar.com/yabb/Attachments/2006BJCCA2_1339_1_Spc.jpg

I don't know why I want pancakes every time I look at this: https://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/d/custom-dodge-dakota/6520850558.html

I must really get under your skin if you take some of your precious moments that you are too busy to use to pay attention to the world around you to write this nonsense. I am oddly satisfied with your hatred.

Who says we don't have that already. GC is regulated at the state level and there are some states where that may be happening, I just don't know enough about every single gun law in every single state to confirm it for certain. These are all non-solutions. Why? well at least in the case of Social media the local PD already has the perogative to intervene based on the seriousness of the threat. Most don't because, let's be honest, the overwhelming majority of these threats are probably not serious. As for domestic violence, well those laws are already in place and have been since the mid 1990s at the federal level and in some cases more expansive at the state level. There just isn't an mechanism of adequate enforcement. similarly there is no real list of heroin addicts or drug addicts of any kind to help with enforcing any rule of restriction, should those laws be enacted. And let's be honest, there isn't much of a proveable connection between heroin use and mass murder currently (maybe that would change once the government is once again allowed to start research). Careful, this is getting really close to making a victim of the crime an accessory. That means if someone steals your gun out of your house and uses it to murder you could be on the hook for not adequately securing the weapon. Do you really want that? In the case of the sandy hook shooter, the mother was murdered by her son so as to get access to her arsenal. Under what you are proposing she shouldn't have had any weapons in her home, secured or not. You really want to go that far? ok and who is going to pay for that? and what court is going to hear it? The system is taxed already, I don't know that most municipalities can accommodate that action. It's nice in theory, but the logistics are a night mare. Ok, let's just change the entirety of how our system of government works to accommodate 1 person who can't get his shit together. Words have meanings, and honestly the biggest concept that goes sailing over his head is that he has to be careful about what he says publicly because it can be considered by the courts as part of the intention behind any action he takes. Think of the Muslim ban and how his statements in the media killed the bill in the courts. What falls out of his pie hole is absolutely relevant to any legislation he wants to propose, because that's 100% in his job description. We have had some awful people as presidents, I mean some real despots, brigands, and cads, but this concept didn't go over their heads, why is he special? o that's right - stable genius. I'm not saying he shouldn't ask "why can't we circumvent due process" if he doesn't know, but perhaps don't do that on TV. It's called preparation, middle schoolers do it before a spelling bee, why do we have to make a special exception for this guy, when every single one of his predecessors understood this? We are talking about government addressing issues, That means everyone. The biggest pushback he is going to get is from his own party, the NRA, and it should be from people like you, but weirdly it isn't. I mean "take em first and figure out the due process later" is like hearing you say "come and take them" and him saying "challenge accepted". How does that not make you bristle? it's literally the thing you are afraid of That's his job. Or at least part of his job. Presenting ideas in a careful way so as to get people on board and appeal to public opinion is literally part of the job description, he's the nation's spokesperson. He is an employee of the people, you are asking his employer to overlook a major performance flaw in his ability to do the job by saying we shouldn't focus on his presentation. People at Walmart get fired for less. If a progressive democrat said this you'd be foaming at the mouth, why give this guy a pass? Again, his public statements are part of the record of any legislation he proposes and pushes for, that's been the case since George Washington. It's why the continental congress took minutes when drafting the declaration of independence and articles of confederation. But let's give Donny a pass because he's special (the helmet kind not the gifted kind). Leaving the privacy concerns out for a moment, think about all the ways people accidentally leave their accounts vulnerable. And think about the frequency of hacking involving those accounts. If you open the door for direct statements on FB you open the door for indirect statements as well, meaning my opinion of you on the same platform. Is that really where you want to go? because let me tell you, if we do get there I'm gonna be on FB 24/7 telling the world you want to murder democratic senators and own a lot of guns, just because I think it will be funny. But lets also consider this, statements on social media that are suspicious are triggers for investigation sometimes, depending on the municipality. In a lot of cases they don't have the bandwidth to investigate everything so they have to be choosy. If you are saying these procedures should be improved I agree, the question is just how? You know what doesn't get discussed in these conversations enough? the error rate. Probably because it is not known for a lot of things. Even with death row inmates the error rate for wrongful conviction is up around 20%, and it could be larger for the general population. What do you think CPSs error rate is? Based on the number of people reporting individual error on the part of CPS I am willing to wager it is at least statistically significant if we tracked such statistics. Oh, did you think it was 0%? I wish I could remember who said it but I was listening to a statistician on NPR recently and he made an offhanded comment that if he had to guess the overall government error rate, it would be somewhere around 30%. Think about that for a second, there is a chance the government screws it up 1/3 of the time. Sometimes they can fix it, sometimes they leathally inject an innocent person. And you are ok with them taking your guns with a potential track record like that?

Well for starters guns are not people. Different set of rules between people and property. Second, it doesn't work like that. In most cases CPS needs a court order to remove a child from a home, so there is already due process involved. The exception is exigent circumstances -meaning CPS has a justifiable reason to believe that the child will experience immediate danger if not taken from the home at once. They then have to justify the harm post removal as part of the process. The best analogy I can come up with is the think of an exigent circumstance removal like a policeman disarming an individual walking into a school with a gun, which means it is also part of due process because that seizure/detainment starts the proceedings. What trump is vaguely suggesting is that any agent of the government can take away first without a court order or exigent circumstance, and then let the owner challenge the system to have it returned. I mean I assume that is what he is saying by all the people in government who immediate cringed when he said it. I think the actual quote was "Take the guns first (meaning before due process is initiated) and then worry about due process later" which is not only a crime against English, it is also fundamentally unconstitutional. Finding a way to incorporate due process to seize weapons is a form of gun control, and by the way, it's the federal government telling the states how to regulate gun control - which is pretty much against the GOP platform, the NRA, and probably feelings you have about our government and overreach Tim (based on things you have said in the past). Is there a way to do it? maybe, I dunno, the entire attitude surrounding this issue has to change. And also someone needs to coach him on stuff so he doesn't sound like a goddamn moron sometimes. We have that already, the hard part in enforcement. Get on your state to grab that stick. That's a little specious and honestly that's usually what you are railing against with your 2A shall not be infringed rhetoric. I mean, are you sure this is what you want? the government to be able to take stuff on the basis of rumor and unverifiable information? And then you have to fight them to get it back? sounds like a ban to me.

there's a BMW motorcycle only shop/quasi junkyard nearby called Re-Psycle (it's in Lithopolis), I can almost guarantee you they have a sub-frame, but they are sometimes weird on parts prices. They are also a good place to sell your R1200C if you really just want out of it. Actually, they have a lot of weird stuff and old stock and probably would be the place I would go to have fab work done - just make sure you talk to the old timer that runs the shop. I've bought some things from him for my R80 so if you want someone to go with you I don't mind. I've gotten at least two tours of the place and I wanted to ask about buying an R69S plunger frame anyway. I did a fast search on ebay and there are literally 8 subframes ranging from $70 to $400 so they aren't hard to find. Honestly, other than it being a forgotten BMW that nobody makes accessories for, finding any regular part for your bike is going to be no big deal. 40K production number is huge for a bike, my ducati is one of 300 in the us and my old Guzzi was one of 1500 and a one year only bike and I didn't have a hard time finding parts for either. 40K motorcycles made? yeah there are less GSXR1000s in the US than there are R1200Cs.

I do love that gloss black tail panel. I'm shocked I don't see that on more cars with how good it looks. Just a thought, if you are committed to LSR with the colt eventually, the C6Z might be a good reliable car to do your licensing runs in before had so that when the colt is eventually ready you can just aim and fire and not worry about Keith Turk or someone else denying your license and invalidating your run because you went 10mph over the target speed he asked you to hold.

green calipers? :barf: Still, nice score. Is that wrapped matte silver?

It took a little bit of digging but I found something: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/10/donald-trumps-debate-mistake-on-trade-800-billion-deficit-doesnt-exist-not-problem-if-it-did/#110299251991 So basically he just doesn't understand how to read the data, and focused on one small detail instead of seeing the bigger picture. Here is what concerns me about that - he doesn't have anybody on his staff to explain it to him? To lay people like you, me, anybody it's not that important to understand it because we don't work in that arena and don't make policy. But, I kinda feel like this is something he should know, or at least someone in his cabinet is making a lot of noise about it. Actually that's the least baffling part, Conservatives have always had this stance. Oddly enough, the last time the conservatives of this country promoted "America First" (in the 1930's), both the NAZI's and the Russians seized the opportunity to fuck with the American government. What's more alarming is how much of it is Anti-democracy and nobody seems to be flinching.

From my perspective, color always matters. But it's polarizing. Some people love green, some people hate it. White, black, silver, and gray are the least offensive colors, Sure some people love them but nobody really "hates" them, at most they feel indifferent. Some People have come to realize that cars are large capital investments in their lives that also devalues the quickest so they try to protect their "investment" by setting it up to do the least amount of damage to value. Also the dealership model has changed. In the old days people ordered cars more often and dealers even ran promotions where you could pay extra to have your car painted any color in the PPG catalog (my father purchased his Dusk Blue 1969 z/28 this way). Now most people buy what's on the lot because that gets them the best deal, so dealers order cars in the least offensive, most broadly appealing colors they can so they can move them faster. Occasionally they will take a chance on an odd color, or the mfg will tell them they have to take a unit in a certain color, but unless there is a buyer willing to pay a premium, not a lot of dealers are going to order more than one metallic purple 3 series. Of course enthusiast cars tend to be the exception. It's more common to see small production cars, or cars with a known market in a more broad color spectrum. This is why you see a lot more of ocean blue and Camo green wranglers, or Plum crazy purple dodge challengers than you would see those colors on other cars. Personally, to me every car cannot wear every color. I firmly believe that every jeep needs at least one green color available, and probbaly should stay away from flats and purples. I love my GTO, esp in it's burgundy color but I oddly hare that burgundy color on a lot of other cars, for some reason I also love yellows on a lot of cars but the 1966-67 GTO's just don't wear it well at all (which is probably why it was never offered as an option). I absolutely despise white, gray, and black cars but somehow I ended up driving a white car and my wife ended up with a black one because they were both such good deals we couldn't pass it up for the price.

The point of these conversations is not competitive. It's important in society to freely share ideas and viewpoints so as to better understand all angles of any issue. In other words: start reading, pussy. Greg, Trump keeps making statements about how the world is ripping us off for $800 Billion in trade agreements. That's an oddly specific number to not have some fact check reference attached to it. Do you know where that comes from? The only thing I think it might be is that the US purchased $866 Billion more in goods than the ROW purchased from US, but even that's not an accurate number because there is on offset of $244 Billion for services and transportation that we sold to the ROW above what they sold to us. So that's a trade deficit of $566 billion. Even still, the numbers all balance out in the end because in order for us to purchase that much there must be an equal amount of capital investment from abroad. So a tariff doesn't affect that at all. If he shrinks the deficit, then he shrinks the capital investment as well - which we really don't want. I'm seriously baffled by this. The other stuff about going around due process and eliminating term limits is stupid, no member of congress will back him on that and it just makes it clear how inexperienced and uninformed he is. Although I genuinely expected a bigger conservative backlash from people when he literally said he wanted to take guns without due process.

BMW choppers have a long history in this country, and considering the R1200c is both the most american airhead bmw and also the most "crusier" bmw, a chopper/custom on is kind of a normal fit. It's better than you saying you want to make it a cafe racer or brat out of it (which is really just code for "I'm a hipster" anyway). Let me make some suggestions: Rather than thing this needs a ton of welding and frame mods, let's see if there are some things you can do to play to the bike's strengths that are within your ability. The nice thing about the R1200C is that it has a subframe that unbolts, so you can buy a second used one and cut that up for your solo seat and if you ever wanted to go back to stock you can just unbolt it and put the original on. IIRC the subframe does have the upper shock mount so you do have to be mindful of that. I don't know that you need a lot of welding to hit your goal. Actually the more I think about it, you could just strip off all the stuff bolted to the subframe and just make a fiberglass seat pan that sits on top of it and hides it. Then have an upolstry shop shape the foam for that shape you want and cover it. Then you have a bolt on seat that uses the stock holes and required no metal fab. As for the floating plate holder, there are companies that make a sidearm plate holder for other models that bolts to the final drive, so maybe you can do some research and see if any of those models share a final drive with your bike and see if a sidarm holder will fit. Rizoma makes probably the nicest one but it's all the most expensive, you can find them for cheaper. After that, I think you are just looking for an upolstry person to redo the seat, a carbon front fender to match the rear, and a paint guy to do the bodywork.

What does it say about me that as soon as I read that line Foreigner's "Dirty White Boy" began playing in my head. Further, what does it say that I am in hard lust for one of these now that ChryCo brought back F8 Green? Austin, She's gonna DD it right? while the scat pack seems like an awesome value, maybe you should see about just getting a basic R/T with a stick and some nice options

Challenger R/T. If you watch the lease specials from Chrysler you can get them with really low lease payments for what they are. I think Bstowers has a lease on his in the low end of your range so....it's out there. VW GTI. I know it looks like a kids car, but it's a lot of car for the money and they are really great driving cars and a lot of fun. Miata. The answer is always miata. If she doesn't like the way it looks, Fiat 124. Subaru/Toyota BRZ/86GT. Everybody bitches that these are slow, but they handle well and are sporty looking. Comes in stick, and is the best compromise for someone who want's a miata, but needs at hardtop with a back seat.

Great, we can agree industries suppressing information is a bad thing. Can we stop giving a pass to the Gun industry and the NRA for the same thing? Once you remove facts and data analysis from the conversation, all you are left with are feelings and subjective morality. There are people who are looking for literally any other factor than firearms to pin the blame on: Mental illness makes a good scapegoat, but Americans don't generally have a good understanding of mental illness. However, Americans are weirdly judgemental about single parents, esp in a morality context. It's an easy target for people who don't want change to pin the blame on, and because people have strong feelings about it already they are more receptive to that message. It isn't easy as a solution, esp since the "solution" is going to be complex and involve a coordinated approach to addressing a variety of factors, not just one - but it's accessible for people who don't want to hear that maybe we need to look at firearms as part of the problem. If we had 1/8th the amount of research and data on this issue that we do on climate change, we would all be having a very different conversation. Currently we can't even fully study the factors that contribute to suicide because the dickey amendment restricts using data where the suicide was committed with a firearm. You are saying you can prove it now, but really you can't because whatever is going on now will always be suspect because of the restrictions of the dickey amendment. Gun control does not strip the 2nd amendment. That is a settled fact. No enumerated right in the constitution is absolute, although the government has to take extra special care in any laws they draft. The NRA's position is that the 2nd amendment is absolute, and their long game is to manipulate the political sphere to try and establish 2A as an exception where that is true. What makes them scary is how effective they are for a relatively small organization, not that they are the face of guns. Evil, is a morally subjective concept, esp comparative morality, so I don't really want to get into this thing where so and so is less evil than this or more evil than that. I don't think the NRA is "evil", I do think that they are manipulative of our political process to advance the agenda of a small number of people, are manipulative of the public by working hard to suppress information, manipulative of their members in that they run an aggressive campaign of fear-mongering that is exploitative to keep people paying dues. Gun owners who believe in reasonable common sense reforms are the battle ground that the NRA is fighting with progressive politicians. By suppressing information, those drafting gun control bills are left to take their best guess as to what measure will work, and honestly - they really just draft to maximum visibility because you can trust politicians to try to play to their base in the absence of anything to back up their measures. I agree, banning assault rifles won't solve this problem, but remember we don't really know what the root of the problem is and what will have an effect, because instead of having data and research we have trial and error. So long as GC proposals seem "unreasonable" the NRA has a hold on the votes and public support of gun owners who think some control is reasonable, if they lose that group their base becomes much smaller and they lose some political power - so it's in their best interest to keep the public ill informed so that someone doesn't come up with an actual reasonable approach. MY old friend and business partner wrote what I think is a very good article on the subject: https://www.outsideonline.com/2284476/five-reasons-why-nra-anti-american I think you would actually enjoy it.

Amazing work as always Tim.

I ran BFG A/T's on my Jeep for almost 20 years. I loved them, they way they looked, they way they worked off road, the only things I hated were the road noise and the price. About 2 years ago Derek hooked me up with Mastercraft Courser AXTs. They were 1/2 the price of the BFGs if not more, were twice as grippy, looked better, and the road noise was leaps and bounds better. I was skeptical about them having any good off road qualities because looking at them they didn't look aggressive. So far I've run it through some lightly muddy trails and some gravel roads in 2wd without a single issue. They don't have big wide gaps like a mud tire but they have jagged tread pattern that makes it almost claw like without inviting a lot of air and noise in there. it may be slightly too tame for what you are looking for, but to be honest I was underwhelmed when I saw them and they really surprised me in a big way.

The point wasn't to discuss the numbers, the point was to illustrate that you guys keep saying its this one factor without any study or evidence to back it up in the face of many other factors. Industries suppressing research and knowledge don't have a good track record of doing it for altruistic reasons. The tobacco industry did it with cancer, the sugar industry did it with sugar's connection to heart disease, so what is it that the political arm of the gun industry is hiding by suppressing knowledge? You guys want to point to broken homes because it's easy and convinent, but honestly you can't really prove it, and that's my point. There are many people that come from broken homes and become functioning members of society, and there are some that become criminals but not murders. If it was really "the cause" those people should be the outliers but they aren't. Anybody who says "the reality is its this one factor" is full of shit. They don't know anymore than anybody else in this landscape because this one organization, the NRA, used the corruption of out political system to hide knowledge and keep the whole country stupid and uninformed. Keep in mind here what my argument is: I'm not supporting any current measure for gun control, I'm just saying the conversation needs to get a whole lot smarter about it and one of the ways it does that is through an increase in the knowledge base through research. In the Heller decision, the supreme court ruled that an outright ban will never happened and that the country has a right to gun control measures - those two issues are settled, if your argument is the NRA party line of there should never be any gun control of any kind, you have already lost that fight. But if you are at least open to reasonable gun control measures, then reasonable starts with knowledge and knowledge starts with research. I don't get why you guys argue so much in favor of letting someone keep you in the dark about something? It is because you are embarrassed as NRA members that you are paying them to do it?

that's a dead sexxy s30. yeah, I kind feel the same way. Although I have seen some pretty S130 customs, none as sexy as an s30. Wailt till I point out that there's a 2+2 version of all these cars as well and the 2+2 looks like the roof is pregnant. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y7CJMJAenZw/TjXhuQKF8zI/AAAAAAAAKFc/KLU3W4ZrUtk/s1600/1976%2B76%2BDatsun%2B280Z%2B280-Z%2BNissan%2BFairlady%2BZ%2BS30%2BL28E%2BCoupe%2B2%252B2%2B1.jpg

That pic is of an S30 which was stopped in 1978. The S130 has a a more angular 3/4 window fastback: S130: there is a slant nose version of the S30 called the Fairlady that looks similar to an S130, but the windows are still a dead giveaway: http://www.tokkoro.com/picsup/1234999-nissan-fairlady-z.jpg

I think you and I agree on this part too. Construction is safety sensitive, so they probably shouldn't budge. Maybe the only part we might disagree on is does the secretary of the subcontractor who does no construction work have to piss clear of Marijuana too even if she has a prescription? I say no, others might disagree.