Mallard

How exactly is legalizing weed going to take money away from the prison system or the war on drugs? Prisons are already overcrowded. If we're going to jail everyone that carries, smokes, and sells weed we're going to need more prisons and greater funding. By making it legal you are essentially lessening the burden on the prison system. Also, provided the government controls and regulates the supply and sale of weed, legalizing it is the biggest action we could do for the war on drugs. You are taking the power and money away from the cartels and raking in tax money. I'm still confused how you think legalizing it will take money away from the war on drugs, though. Where does that money come from? The issue I see is "high driving" has been shown to have the same effects as drunk driving. There needs to be a method available for police to test drivers and for work places to test employees. I also don't want our entire society to turn into a bunch of hippy stoners, so I'm torn.

To me it's disheartening to see people who voted with an opposing view be dismissed as stupid idiots. There are this types of voters on both sides. Elections are won and lost with the moderate votes, and Romney did a poor job in this area. He has changed his position so often on issues that people don't really know what he stands for. He's either seen as indecisive/easily swayed or just telling people what they want to hear in order to get elected. Neither one of those is good. In front of a very conservative crowed he would be outrageously conservative, in front of moderates he would 'tone down' his message. Additionaly, "trickle down" tax policy has been proven ineffective at job creation and only increases the gap between the middle and upper class. People who believe this is not a good idea would not be in favor of Romney's tax policy. I think Bill Maher expressed the opposition's view the best: "When you elect Mitt, you're not just electing him. You're electing every right wing nut he's pandered toin the last ten years. If the Mittmobile does roll into Washington it will be towing behind it the whole anti-intellectual anti-science freak show. The abstinence obsessives, the flat-earthers, home schoolers, the holy warrier, the anti-women social neanderthals, the closed homosexuals, and every endtimer who sees the Virgin Mary in the grass over the septic tank." Say what you want about the education levels of the people who voted for him, but Mitt won the entire middle of the US and a lot of the south, which are extremely rural and not known as cultural centers of the country. The problem is the extremists have taken control on the Republican party, moved it far from center, and alienated a large number of voters.

I thought this was a different take on the auto bailout, which I had not heard before. http://www.thenation.com/print/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza The high points:

Yeah, except it's a death trap on a track.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gohealth-infographic-obamacare-vs-romneycare-144100781.html http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/fieldclinic/Obamacare-vs-Romneycare-Is-there-a-difference.html http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/ You're right in that the health care debate could probably take up an entire thread. Are they really that different? Not from what I've seen. Are the differing details enough for him to pledge a complete repeal of the law (in favor of his own plan), if elected? I don't think so. And, again, Romney gives a mixed message on his own stance. He's taken pretty much every possible position on the issue, including saying he would love to sign legislation and supports a Constitutional Amendment banning it. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-abortion-evolution/story?id=17443452

In order to track race you will want something reliable with 'cheap' replacement parts/maintenance items. I've always loved E30 projects, and the Merc 190E is another possibility, although finding stock replacement parts (like rear diffs) could be troublesome. The other thought, which I always seem to suggest to people, is a Pontiac Solstice. You can pick up the 2.4L's for a decent price and either turbo the 2.4 or swap to an LSx pretty easily. Swap to the GXP front bumper for brake cooling, add the Cobalt SS Brembo brakes, and get the aftermarket coupe hardtop so you can build a full cage inside and drop the convertible top weight.

My point was that GM and Chrysler re-paid every penny of the governement loans, which was their obligation. The ~1.2 Billion in losses referenced in that NYT article you posted is from the "old Chrysler," which was split from the company operating today for the purposes of liquidating assets that were not transferred to the new company. Again, I don't see it that way. To me, large numbers of people, businesses, and the economy would have lost, in a very big way, if they were given no assistance. Don't forget that the bankruptcy process and reorganization GM and Chrysler went through is the same as Romney proposed in his "let GM go bankrupt" article. The only difference is he wanted the loans to come from private sources and not the governemet. The government would provide loan guarantees, but no actual funding. This route was attempted, but no bank stepped forward, as they were in the middle of being bailed out themselves, credit was tight for everyone, and no one was willing to accept that risk (monetarily or politically). President Bush gave them enough money to table the issue until after Obama took office. Without the US government supplying the funding, these companies would have slipped into Ch 7. Sure, during liquidation there is a chance portions of each would live on under new ownership, but given the economic situation at the time where do you think that would come from? I'll give you an idea. When GM and Chrysler went through Ch 11 they were each split in two; "new" and "old." The new company would reorgainize, while the old would hold all of the 'troubled' assets and begin liquidation. The "old" companies held auctions at some of their properties in order to sell off equipment, tools, scrap, office supplies, etc. Most of the heavy equipment used for production (stamping presses, weld cells, ...) was purchased by the Chinese and shipped across the Pacific. Also, the Chinese are very eager to enter the US automotive market. So on one hand you chastize the current administration for 'allowing' American companies to be bought up by the Chinese, while the automotive bailouts most likely prevented exactly that from happening. That's why I see the situation ans win-lose, not win-win. You could A) provide funding and prevent 1M people from joing the unemployment lines during an already tight market and poor economic situation, prevent a possible cascading effect of suppliers and competitors going under, and keeping two large American companies from being bought up by the Chinese. Or B) Not provide any assistance, allow them to be liquidated, put 1M out of work, resulting in additional suppliers going under due to lost business and unpaid debt, which then effects all other OEM's, shutting down production around the world. These 1M people default on their mortgage's, causing an even worse real estate market and more losses for the banks, and they would continue to leach of the system still today. Keeping these people at work, paying their mortage's, and collecting taxes from them is better than having them live of government assistance and I have no doubt it's been a net gain for the government. And the government has actually gotten paid back for most of it, which can't be said for the much larger bank bailout. Again, I have to disagree. Today's automotive industry is heavily entwined with suppliers. The large, tier 1, suppliers that send parts to GM and Chrysler also supply most, if not all other brands around the world. When the shit hit the fan, the company I worked for had somewhere around $30M in outstanding debt from GM. When a company builds hundereds of thousands of vehicles per month and you supply parts on a Net 30 or Net 60 (sometimes more) pay schedule you can see how some companies could be left with huge losses. Some would be able to cope, others wouldn't. Small tier 2 or 3 shops would have the most difficult time. I don't see the president having any impact on the UAW. Is Romney (or any president) going to sit across the table fromthe UAW when their contracts come up for renegotiation? Again, I disagree. Their poor sales and shitty product was due to the German management gutting the brands. Today, their sales are improving every quarter, their product is actually pretty good, and they have very little overhead compared to other companies. Their break-even point is much lower, which has allowed them to turn big profits on a fraction of the sales. The problem is, Romeny has flipped his position on so many issues in order to get the Republican nomination. He even changed his position on several issues between the first and third debate (NBC Nightly News even did a piece on this). Now he's openly lying to voters with his "Chrysler's sending jobs to China" ad's in a cheap ploy to try and win votes. I really don't know what he truely stands for other than saying what he needs to in order to win votes. Obama-care used Romney-care as a base, but when he did it it was good, for Obama it was bad. He's against gay marriage, but he believes one man can marry multiple women. He says he's against abortion now, but he wasn't previously. So far he just seems like a talking head that's spewing out the party line, and ended his governorship with a dreadfully low approval rating. I'm sure you'll have a field day with that, but I am truthful when I say I really don't care WHO anyone votes for, as long as they are voting for that person for the right reasons. Obviously, I cannot see myself voting for Romeny since his policy's would have left my state and my industry in ruin, he continues to spread lies about the auto industry still today, and I just don't trust him due to his constant flip-flopping.

From your link, The company has repaid ever dollar it was asked to and the unpaid portion is from the separate company created during the bankruptcy for the purpose of liquidating assets. This was an expected loss. It's akin to a large scale storage wars. We bought what was behind door number 1 and haven't been able to cover the cost with what could be sold off. Again, this was expected from the start. How much would the government have paid out in unemployment, food spamps, welfare, etc. if all those jobs were lost? How much in taxes have been collected from all of those workers wages that would have been lost? How much money have we gotten back from all the banks we gave much larger sums of money to? I guess that's the difference between us. I don't see this as "the entire Chrysler debacle." While I don't think it's a good thing to need a government bailout, i think saving these company's was a very good thing for the economy and the gains outweigh the losses. The cascading effects of GM and Chrysler liquidating would have been drastic. Not only to unemployment and government assistance but it would have caused many suppliers to shut down, a lot more foreclosures, and the local economy (restaurants, catering, etc) would have taken a huge hit.

It's because you are on AT&T. Better switch to Verizon.

Don't forget that this "Key US Company" was owned by the Germans until ~2007. The mis-management of Chrysler started with them. When Cerberus took control they tried to stop the bleeding and they were changing all the product, but they just didn't have the time before the economy dropped out. Chrysler's bankruptcy was due to DIAMLER'S mis-management of the company. All the 2011 refreshed models that hit the market and have earned high marks are mostly Cerberus's work, not Fiat's. Although, Sergio has done a hell of a managing Chrysler. Also, don't forget that Fiat was the ONLY company to step forward to take on Chrysler. Without Fiat's committment the company would have been liquidated. I honestly don't care who anyone votes for, as long as they are voting for that person for the right reason's. That's why I like the link from the OP. If the person you plan to vote for is not the number one result from the survey, you should figure out why. Seeing total BS being fed to people, while they admit that they're feeding total BS, pisses me off. This all started for me a couple nights ago on Facebook with some people's political posts, and it just angers me as to why some people are supporting their candidate.

But even when the language was cleared up he continues his spin of misinformation, trying to scare workers in those key area's. This is my probem with politics in general. The campaigns are shady as hell, spreading false propaganda, which they have been confronted on, yet they continue to run the ad's. At one point Romney's campaign said "we will not let this election be decided by fact checkers" in response to the factcheck.com web site...yet they use links to it in their ad's when it suits them. It's like he lies to your face, you tell him that you know he is, and the response is 'I know but it doesn't matter.' http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/opinion/mitt-romney-versus-the-automakers.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0 The entire automotive market is strong in China and you CANNOT SELL vehicles in China unless you build them there.

Alex is an amazing individual and one of this generations greatest athletes. You have to remember, Alex has no legs below the knee. So he got off his bike, removed the other guys front wheel, dug through the trash for a rope, tied them together, dismounted his bike again at the finish, untied the bikes and pushed him across the finish line. All on his stubbs.

I think they are all from Sandy, but some are from places in the Caribbean, like Hati.

Me Likey. That's exactly how I would do it.

I agree. If price becomes an option, some of the General Tires are better than some of the Conti's and they can be had a lot cheaper. Conti makes both brands.

Supposedly they are stock turbo's borrowed from a Focus ST.

"There's a face on the back! heh heh How'd that happen!?"

Lol. Mr. Forky. That's a blast from the past.

There were quite a few pictures of transformers blowing up. Once it started, the high winds made it difficult to contain. Plus they said the hydrants had really low water pressure.

Wow. They said 50 homes completely destroyed, 10 still burning.

This thread kicks the shit out of the one here. I'm not going to start reposting, so it's best if you just spend hours sifting through it. http://www.xceedspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206343 P.S. Looks like a lot of the older pics are dead links. Start at the end and work your way forward.

The more I read/watch about thist car, the more I like it. I would love to have one as a daily, and it would even be possible to drive to Columbus from Detroit. It seems to be priced right (with the small battery) but they're going to be in such short supply I doubt I would be able to get as good a deal on a Tesla as I did on my Volt.

You know you're a baller when... ...you use a dress shirt to plug your intake manifold instead of shop towels.

No teal, no care.

Were you able to modify the fuel pressure tables in the ECU, like they do on the Ecotec? Others also found on the Ecotec that the problem was with the in-tank pump, so they upgraded that and had no issues. You could also install additional port fuel injection that comes on under high loads, like the BRZ has stock. The tolerances and process of building a DI pump is very tight and I would only trust a company with a lot of proven capability right now. If everyone's going to need them it would be smart for IPS to partner with one of them and control a large chunk of the market.