Geeto67

so basically it becomes a full size modded powerwheels. I'm game, let's go find some giant sewer pipe sized PVC.

Well to be fair your "business" model of being free and open to everyone kinda gets in the way of their monetizing the cars and coffee concept. I mean, how are you going to convince sponsors to give you money and set up a "watch bar" (yes a bar that serves wristwatches instead of drinks) if your lot is filled with rusty 240Z cars with ford 5.0 swaps and chevy cavalier's with "Mechanical slut" written across the windshield. Also, your event promotes too much social interaction - how can you stand around being cooler than thou while a DJ blasts regaton and trance house at 9AM at full volume when all these beer gut bourgeois want to talk to each other about their hella flush honda civics. Seriously though clay, is there a way lennox would let you "give away" food and coffee and accept donations to help with clean up of the lot, pay for the website, and maybe do one or two special events?

That's the 64,000 question now, isn't it? People have been talking about technology caused unemployment since the turn of the last century, and for the most part they have been mostly right. We don't have elevator operators, copy boys, switchboard operators, etc, anymore...and actually if you follow the time line for other people displaced by technology their stories are quite sad. Some find other work in the marketplace, but a good number just age out of the work force and live retired lives - the lucky ones live off retirement savings on a fixed income. It is the next generation that adjusts to the employment marketplace by just not training for these skills and replacing them with some other skills in the educational program. So in the long term the economy shifts and compensates over the course of a generation. But the short term, you end up with a higher unemployment rate, a strain on public resources, and a group of disaffected people who are most affected by technology but are in the worst possible position to understand why they are affected. A guess what really worries me about automated cars, isn't just the truckers. They are one of the largest affected singular groups, but they aren't the only ones that will be affected, and I don't know that we have seen a technology shift of this scale before. Even computers presented a gradual roll out where small pockets of the industry were affected at different times, even though the overall impact was massive, but this is poised to have pretty quick short term (5 year) effects. Technological progression is always good, but the advent of this technology does not inspire that we are entering stable financial times.

I am uncomfortable with the change it poses to long haul trucking. Sure the industry is suffering an employment shortage, but autonomous tech will further reduce wages of those already employed by reducing the qualifications and experience needed to do the job. Although there is a driver shortage, there are still 3.5 million over the road truckers right now, and reducing their wages won't be good for the economy on the whole. The article draws a parallel with commercial air travel, but the reason pilots weathered it better is due to regulation and the rigorous training requirements mandated by those regulation. Truck drivers don't nearly have the same protection. Sure the accident rate will go down, and that is overwhelmingly positive but I am not sure the balance is there. Only time will tell how it all shakes out. I dunno, not eat as much McDonald's? (sorry, couldn't resist).

Their website currently refers to themselves as the "The original, largest, and longest-running "cars and coffee" gathering in ohio" so...that should give you some idea. then again Clay does have this up on the .net website: so I would probably describe it as Salty, very very very salty.

just go to Quaker steak during GG. They have that little pass through street that people just do rolling smokies on for days.

The couple times I went, yeah. It's been a year, but I doubt they changed anything. They don't do it on the lot, but almost every car leaving the Byers lot treated that front strip of road like it was the starting line at NTR while a crowd just sat at the entrance and watched.

This ain't "Exotics" columbus cars and coffee. Gotta go to byers to see that.

It wasn't a warm summer day I can tell you that. It was cold but the rain didn't start till about 11, which is when CC&C usually ends anyway. When the Cup o' Joe was still around there would still be about 10 cars in the lot and a bunch of CR people at a table inside. I had heard there were still people going in the winter and I happened to have an 8:00 appointment in that neighborhood so it was nothing for me to swing by after.

I am more upset that nobody is showing up in winter. I was out there in my jeep on Sat and it was literally me and a guy in a blue bmw 2 series (and he didn't stay). I got there at around 9:30, went to B&N, and came back and sat in a spot for about 10 min from 10:20-10:30. Then I went to do other things. I don't mind that there is no coffee, but one of the things that kept things going in winter was that there was a place to sit and bench race regardless of the weather. I don't think B&N is a good fit for that, maybe champs except they would be opening just for us which is kind of weird and makes me a little uncomfortable. Maybe if the new place serves breakfast, even if it is hippy dippy overpriced sprout and bean curd sammiches, will offer some of that back. So honestly clay, given that the hardcore winter group was usually roughly 10 people - maybe find a substitute venue for the days when it's 35 degrees and raining? maybe take over a coffeehouse nearby with parking for bench racing sessions.

I was going to write in this thread with all the hallmark holidays that exist "why isn't there a manual transmission appreciation day?" and shouldn't we start one... ...Then I realized, when you drive stick - every day is manual trans appreciation day.

Why would they reallocate something that generates a significant amount of revenue for the state? That's like saying you are going to close your profitable ice cream stand to hand out dollar bills on the street corner. you really don't know shit about me, but that's ok. You don't listen and just paint everyone that doesn't see it your way as a socialist. There is no 1 approach to anything. There are some things the government is in the best position to handle and others where it is not optimal. Taxes pay for this. I don't want to see tax payer money wasted either, but unlike you I do understand that some things I do get a benefit from even if I am not the person the program is directed at for my taxpayer money. Social benefit programs like WIC and such are like that - My child benefits from other kids getting proper nutrition. How? inadequate nutrition can lead to higher child mortality rate which itself draws resources away in schools to deal with it re-actively. Also undernourished children are more prone to illness, esp contagious illnesses that my child might be exposed to in the school system. Children with poor nutrition grow up to be adults with generally poor health and that taxes the health care system because generally they are going to be poor but we aren't going to let them die in the streets either. I bring up child nutrition, because while most immigrants, illegal or legal, don't have access to social benefit programs, the few programs that they do have access too mostly are aimed at benefiting children. You want to complain about immigrants leeching off the system, but I want you to remember the majority of those people you are calling "leeches" are children - not adults. I think it can too, but for some reasons our definition of better is different. Why? Government spending has always baffled me. We know that the government runs classified and covert operations, but also that government spending is generally a matter of public record. So how does the government pay for these covert ops without calling attention to it in the budget? $100 hammers is one way. Is this $800 Million such a case where it is an aggregate of covert spending? or is it really lost money? Depends on how you look at it I guess.

Yeah, but sometimes that political agenda is protecting your constituents. You keep trying to "make this simple" and it really isn't simple, there are a lot of permutations and there is no one single policy that is going to work at a state or local level for everyone. This isn't as simple as "making a phone call", because every "phone call" comes with expenditure for detaining that prisoner. Let's take two examples - one a city in a state not near a border and one a city in a state near a border. In the first city, since illegal border crossing is not a concern it is unlikely the state or local municipality will have an illegal immigration companion law (since states can not write immigration policy, some states will write laws that pair up with federal immigration laws so they can still detain and try the prisoner if the feds balk, the ACLU has a lot of fun suing states over these as most end up being discriminatory). So they stop an individual for a minor traffic violation, one that does not have a detainment requirement, and they discover the person is an illegal alien. Now what? they can hold the person until the feds exert jurisdiction to move him to immigration court for a trial, which means he costs the state money they won't get reimbursed for, or they can let him go. Also if they do decide to hold him and the feds decline to prosecute, who pays for his stay in jail? the state. In a city with a significant population of illegal immigrants this doesn't make sense for them to waste time on this, so they implement a policy to basically ignore it unless the individual committed a serious state crime (misdemeanor or higher). When they get a hardline federal politician telling them they need to enforce more, they declare themselves a sanctuary city and market it as being progressive on immigration. In reality if the Federal government started reimbursing the state for the detainment costs, most of those states would quietly roll over and play along. But they don't. Now take our city in a border state. Same situation, but the state is likely to have an immigration companion law they can charge the individual with so they have incentive to hold him because either way - he is going to get charged at the state level which adds to their crime statistics and can help when they request budgeting for next year. Even if the feds don't pursue an immigration case against the individual or he wins his deportation case, the state may still hold him in prison if he doesn't beat the state charge. In either situation it is highly political but for different reasons. Same can be said for sanctuary cities in a state near an international border, their political motivation is to appeal to their voting base because of some industry that supports immigrant workers or has a larger ethnic citizen population that share an ethnicity with the majority of illegal immigrants. That's just politics. I will point out that if an illegal immigrant does comitt a felony, not even the sanctuary cities will ignore that, but then there is a different difficult problem - do you deport him or do you put him in prison in the US and then deport him? You keep thinking it's "so simple - find out who is responsible and make them pay" except it isn't that simple and because of the constitution and the equal protection clause and freedom of speech you can't really treat people of a different political message differently.

Change it to whom? The federal government relies on the states to enforce a lot of their laws, not just immigration. It's part and parcel of how the government works. The Fed then can pick and choose which ones it wants to prosecute at a federal level and leave the states to deal with the rest. That's why a lot of states will enact their own versions of federal law so as to be able to prosecute the ones left behind and add to their numbers. There are actually a shit ton of factors involved General speaking criminal cases that involve multiple states or interstate commerce or travel have to be litigated by the federal government (usually you see the exceptions in drug cases, but again lots of factors and complex). However, when it comes to immigration, the states can't really write their own laws that supersede federal law. So if the feds decide not to prosecute the case, the state is left holding the check for a stay in prison for someone that they can't incarcerate (and thus add to their numbers). To take some of the pressure off the Executive Office for Immigration Review runs a special court in all the states to handle immigration cases specifically. and INS does have it's own officers but the department is just not in the best position to be policing everywhere, so they rely on the state and local law enforcement to do it. I dare you to make less sense. A "Sanctuary city" isn't stopping INS or any other federal law enforcement branch from arresting and prosecuting immigrants of any kind, it is just saying that they will not dedicate the local resources to make it a priority. Either way the constituency pays because either it comes out of federal taxes or state and local taxes. Asking one state to pay for all of the immigration in this country is the text book definition of unconstitutional. Not because of unfair taxation or tax policy, but because of a violation of the equal protection clause. Also, so is persecuting a state on the basis of political affiliation or message under the first, fourth, and fourteenth.

How much of this do you think doesn't happen already? There are many classes of visas and all have different rules. That's kind of what makes this issue so complex. There isn't a "no reason" visa that people come in under - generally you kind of have to have a reason to come into the country in the first place. There are also hard caps to the number of any one category being issued, for example there are only 140,000 employment visas issued per year. That's it. There are 5 different types of Employment Visas, but generally they are revoked within a reasonable amount of time within the end of your job. They also have time limits and have to be renewed periodically. If you stay after that you become an illegal alien. For a family sponsored visa (what is called Chain migration): sponsors of immigrant family members must prove they can support them financially for an extended period of time, starting with proof of an income at or above 125 percent of the federal poverty level. They remain financially responsible for all sponsored immigrant relatives until the latter become citizens, are credited with having worked 10 years in the U.S., leave the country permanently, or die. Felony conviction is grounds for deportation. It honestly sounds like you have no problem with the current system, you just mistake lack of enforcement for those items missing from what's actually going on. But the enforcement part can be fixed - just raise taxes so the federal government can pay the state government to enforce their laws and also build out the immigration dept. Yay!!! more big government.

Ok, so what's the solution for poverty then? Remember, every government policy is solving for something - and those social programs account for a lot (infant mortality, child nutrition, public safety, etc...). So if you get rid of them how do you fix what they were solving for?

I was in awe watching the boosters land. It literally looked like a 50's sci fi movie. Regarding the tesla roadster in space...It's cool marketing, and uber nerdy to put Hitchiker's guide references in it, but the last thing space needs is more useless space junk floating around in it. He was shooting to put it in orbit around mars, but it swung wide and is not set to orbit the earth in wide orbit for millions of years. If it doesn't hit something else first.

So tell me...how do you tell the difference between an immigrant neighborhood and a US citizen ethnic neighborhood from a moving car? I'm pretty sure you don't - you just look for signs not in English and assume. your whole rhetoric is getting a better class of immigrants through restrictions. Testing them against those restrictions is vetting them. I can tolerate your ignorance and willingness to believe partisan lies, but just not understanding what it means to "vet" someone makes this a hard conversation to have. Again, the restrictions and the process is pretty robust - what "Exactly" do you think is not being done? "Good" people by whose standard? yours? You see it so then it must be true for all people in all cases, regardless of what the data or you know people who aren't you that actually know about these things are paid to study it say. You see it, even though you collect no information and don't even know for sure what you are seeing is accurate is most important. LOL:dumb: We have plenty of poor ass whites here as it is, we don't need to import any more, but what is important to note is you aren't exactly this angry about them or their situation. It's always the somali's with you, or always the "Turds" (let's pretend that you don't use that term more often than not to refer to brown people and are oblivious to it). My point is, get angry about poverty, immigration is small potatoes compared to that larger problem. Your common sense sounds awfully racist. Pointing it out isn't a crime or even that hard to do, it's just making obvious what you have chosen to ignore. Everybody has some ingrained racial prejudice, humans are tribal by nature, but the difference is how much you let it influence what you say and do and honestly - you let it dictate a lot of what you say. The fact you don't see it, probably has more to do with your own self awareness and introspection, but it doesn't mean it isn't there. Lots of people had pretty racist "common sense", the area most of them live in is called "The South", doesn't make them any less racist. Another fun fact about family based immigration - it has a requirement that the sponsoring person be able to financially support that individual: In addition to bearing responsibility for application fees and any ancillary costs, sponsors of immigrant family members must prove they can support them financially for an extended period of time, starting with proof of an income at or above 125 percent of the federal poverty level. They remain financially responsible for all sponsored immigrant relatives until the latter become citizens, are credited with having worked 10 years in the U.S., leave the country permanently, or die Seriously, you should read that link I posted. In fact, stop reading my reply right now and go read that so when you do reply you are at least better educated on the subject matter. And yet you had way bigger advantage over others who emigrate here in that you spoke the native language, had a job lined up, and moved to a country that was driving distance from your home one. Most others have maybe 1 of those three if any. A singular example is not the whole. Education is already an evaluated factor. I am not sure how you can objectively measure "Drive" and I honestly don't know your definition of merit but I can guess you think it is different from how the government determines "merit" even though you probably can't tell me how. Lots of people in this country live in poverty, few make something of themselves, this isn't a problem exclusive to immigrants. Even if we took only college educated people with "drive" and "Merit" according to your definitions most of them would not succeed either. I have no idea what the fuck you are seeing. I am pretty confident you don't know what the fuck you are seeing either because I highly doubt you are talking to these people. Again, read the link to snopes. It talks about the original definition of "Chain migration" vs how republicans have changed that definition to suit their ends. You are taking Legomsky's statement out of context as "Proof" that there are other people coming in under "Chain migration" when his point was that Senator Johnson was actually using the definition of Chain migration in a misleading way to make the problem seem bigger than it is. he goes on to further say that even if it were true, it represents only 10% of the total number of immigrants, so 120K isn't "A big fucking number". also you left out the part of that article which goes on to say: Syracuse University political science professor Elizabeth Cohen, whose specialties include immigration, told us: This idea that an immigrant receives a visa and all of a sudden five or 10 close and distant relatives are being pulled in on a chain is completely unrepresentative of how our immigration system actually works. Nobody is saying the world is perfect. It sure as fuck ain't. But that doesn't mean it can't improve. I'm saying you, Tim, prefer to not actually research anything that isn't reaffirming your own biases. You see things, you make a snap judgement, and then spend the rest of the time trying to affirm what you see rather understand anything objectively. You ignore any data that doesn't jive with what you see and that's just not objective. And you are quick to assign problems to specific nationalities as if those problems are exclusive to them when they are not. I have lived in 6 different cities and one foreign country. I have visited most of the state in the US for work or pleasure. This isn't about being well traveled. One tiny sample in one small geographic location is not statistically significant to the whole of the problem. It was mentioned earlier here that immigrants make more use, statistically speaking, of medical services than natives at the same poverty level, so maybe you are seeing more because the natives aren't showing up. If you were volunteering with something in housing you might have a different experience. Amazing to whom? I live in dublin and my kid goes to dublin schools. MY experience has been that there ain't no poor people in dublin. There are 4 section 8 apartment complexes that fall into the dublin school district. That's 396 apartments in a town of 41,000 people. According to the 2010 census 2.7% of the people that live in dublin live at or below the poverty line so...that's not an "Amazing" number of people even if every one of them didn't speak English. It's great you do this volunteer work, and I don't doubt you have these experiences, but you lack the larger context for perspective. You need both data and experience.

Do you think we don't "vet" them now? The Immigration process is pretty robust - they don't let in just anybody. First off there isn't just one type of immigration, there are dozens of categories from temp to indefinite visas, employment, family based, etc....each has it's own requirements and restrictions, and all of them vet ability to work, basic skills, etc. It's not an easy open door to get into the US, we turn away hundreds of thousands of people a year - more than we let in. So what, specifically, is it you think is not being done right? cite specific examples. Maybe your prejudices against Somali's that is keeping you from seeing the bigger picture or making a causal connection where there isn't one. You see the part of town that houses their community and it is a poor area, and it is plagued with all the same things every other poor area is plagued with, but because you see it and it is this specific group - you think they brought this problem with them and it's specific to their nationality. In reality the neighborhood probably doesn't have any more problems than any other poor neighborhood, but you love to trot out how the Somali's are ruining columbus because "you have seen it with your own eyes". What you aren't seeing is that immigrating to a foreign country from anywhere to anywhere is hard. First off, unless you are obscenely wealthy, you can't really take much of your possessions with you, so you are basically starting with whatever you can fit into a suitcase. Also standard of living doesn't translate across borders, lots of middle class educated people end up in the US poor. Plus being highly educated doesn't guarantee you a job. It was an old joke that half the cab drivers in NYC were doctors in their home country, but that isn't far from the truth - there were lots of physicians that came from other countries that found when they got here their medical licenses weren't recognized and their standards of education made them ineligible to obtain an state license to practice medicine. So they end up doing other jobs, some in the medical industry but most of them not and not nearly paying as well. This is so common a thing across a lot of higher education career areas that it has become a comic cliche - recently I was watching a rerun of Big bang theory where the Russian immigrant janitor at the college was Nuclear Physicist in Russia, and while it was funny - it is rooted in a dark truth. Ok, so first off you know there are already limits to chain migration, right? As an immigrant you can only file for: Spouse Unmarried son or daughter And they still have to pass the standard vetting process which is already very through. A US citizen can sponsor a sibling as well which non-citizens cannot do. So while "Chain migration" sounds scary on paper it isn't at all actually - and by the way the current backlog is 20 years for some countries so....how much of a threat is "Chain Migration". It actually isn't at all, but because of the name and the things people assume without actually researching it has become a Republican talking point. Ending "Chain migration" means splitting up family units, husband and wives and their underage children, is that really what you want to end? It isn't going to make a dent in terrorism, and ending it isn't going to suddenly going to stop a huge number of people from coming into the country. So why do you want to end it again? so Tim, before you start your "chain migration" rhetoric again, I suggest you read this primer on it so you actually know what you are talking about: https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/01/what-is-chain-migration/ Whom are you looking to punish exactly? We deport people who are caught in the country illegally - so are you looking to punish? the state politicians? Be more clear. As far as the justification for this "sanctuary city bullshit" there is a pretty big justification for it and one you actually like - state's rights. To be more specific, the state's right to control their law enforcement budget. The funny thing about law enforcement at the federal level is it leans really heavily on the state law enforcement activity and puts very little money in to assist with that. Most states make enforcement of it a priority based on what their budget will allow, and it does vary from ignoring it completely to somewhat rigorous depending on the state. When the federal government starts to say it wants to ramp up enforcement and deportations - what the states hear is that it wants to increase the state's spending on capturing and housing prisoners and doesn't want to pay for it. What the federal government has spent money on is creating deportation courts that are supposed to be "faster" than regular ones, but what is being found is that the cost of this speed is to disregard procedure, in some cases basic human rights, and create inefficiencies in the process to get it wrong. This American life did a really good piece on these types of courts - you should listen: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/636/transcript But more importantly, next time you hear a city saying it is a "sanctuary city" you should re-adjust your ears to hear what is really going on - the state saying to the federal government "fuck off with your strict enforcement unless you are going to give us money to pay the costs of this extra enforcement".

The majority recipients of public assistance programs in immigrant households (both legal and illegal) are children. You want to deny the children access to milk and cheese and bread? fucking cold, man. BTW, Native people use more public assistance for "cash welfare" and housing, where as immigrants use public assistance more than natives for Food and Medicaid.

220 power. Welding station. Not just a roll around 110 mig and a helmet, but an actual welding table with vise, magnet angle braces, at least a mig 220 or a tig if the person has the skills. Also an oxy setup with an airline body for braising and cutting. Manual bending brake Tubing bender. Band saw with metal cutting blade

Clay found something new to fap to.

Actually, I think the van itself answers the question without a test.... Van: "STD?" Anybody who would willingly have sex in that van: "Yes, Please" I feel like it should have a spare tire cover on the back with an elaborately airbrushed script that reads: "Rolling Probable Cause".

We've been here before. Remember how much W was mocked for just making up words out of thin air? I mean his name actually became the description of these things in the zeitgeist --> Bushisim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushism Before that it was Ford, who Chevy Chase used to imitate on SNL as a semi-mentally disabled klutz. It was so popular that people today still think of Ford as a Forrest Gump like President (and it also helped launch Chase's career). The difference between Bush, Ford, and the Orange Oligarch is that neither Ford nor Bush, even on their best impromptu day wouldn't "accidentally" Nazi-ism, or mock disabled people. They both understood there was a higher standard they were being held to and their deviation was a folksy way of subtly subverting that to keep in touch with mainstream Americans, where as DJT basically says "Fuck your higher standard, America is about Jerry Springer, and casual racism, and cheating on your wife with a porn star - why should we aspire for better". And that is kind of the point of contention, I don't think we have ever had a president before that acted like we shouldn't all collectively aspire to be our better selves.

100% agree. You have three basically similar religions hogging the majority of religious practitioners in the world and they are fighting stupid bloody wars over literally inches of difference. It's fucked politics, it's fucked community, it's fucked education, and it is going to keep doing so for as long as we let it. I have said it many times here, what makes for a good personal set of rules for an individual to live by, often makes for shitty public policy to address the ills of a community or group.