Disclaimer

The smartest people vote Democrat... so can you find another comic with "Republicans" as the punchline? Just so things are fair and accurate.

What can I say??... things are a little slow at work. That only took me about 20 minutes to figure. I spent the rest of the time doing homework.

I dunno...after reading some of your posts, you seem to be the most left leaning person on this board. I might have went overboard on the crack pipe comment, but I'm guessing I wasn't too far off on the rest of it. I'd also guess your a union member.

You'd guess wrong. I'm white collar. Just FYI - Bachelor's in electrical engineering and a Masters in Business (well, technically I have a year left). And I do lean a little left on certain items I suppose, but I don't know why leaning a little left classifies me as some sorta Communist / tree-hugger / sissy / liberal drug hippie (in fact, I've never smoked in my life)? I'm none of those things.

...I think maybe you've got your wires crossed. She misses half of the qualifications YOU said she needed for the program. I'm guessing that something doesn't line up here.

You're right, you're still missing the point. The text Nick copied wasn't NEWS, it was opinion mixed with partial facts. You need to separate the actual facts from the opinion in Nick's copied text (e.g. she's only held a job for a year). Read Dweezel's snopes post on the previous page. I've walked you through everything and my process and logical steps can't be more clear.

...There are laws to cover the people that dont get hired because of race, sexual orientation, etc. so give that up.

True, you ever been involved in a discrimination lawsuit? You know how hard it is to prove? I know how the game works, there's a myriad of other reasons to legally fire you that can be used to mask discrimination. If someone has prejudices, you can't stop them from finding a perfectly legal reason to "shit can" you. I bet 99.9% of us are guilty of violating IT policy at work (personal phone calls, personal e-mail, message boards), but none of us get fired. Yet, if they felt like it they could terminate any one of us at any given time - which is just a single example of how to get rid of people you have personal prejudices against.

If someone has a shitty work ethic they shouldn't have a job, and I really dont give a rat's ass if they have to live in a refrigerator box under a bridge. I shit canned two guys this week that had a "shitty work ethic", they can take it down the block. If they're too old, they really should have planned better - maybe put some money away for a "rainy day"? IF they "refuse" to get a job (like the broad in question) let 'em starve.

Planned better? You can't be serious... how the hell are you going to forecast how long you're going to live? And exactly how do you plan on motivating people to do this? Letting them starve? Yea, that's the solution to every one of our social crises, work or starve. This isn't a third world country, if you want to live with those standards, move to one. Personally, I don't want to deal with the panhandlers and street crime on a daily basis (my CW permit hasn't arrived yet). I've got a lot more to lose than a street bum who wants food. With as many people as your "solution" would put out to starve - it's almost a guarantee it that there would be huge civil unrest, and rampant crime. Its been researched.

Hmmmm....how DO you handle an increase in crime? I dunno...how about we arrest the people that commit them, and put them in jail? Same for the panhandlers - lock them up.

I've already proven that's wrong. Prison costs more than welfare -- go read my other thread and links and enlighten yourself. Plus, there's a TON of other issues locking people up create. Which, prison is just another welfare system, except not only do taxpayers pay for the welfare of criminals, but also the labor involved to guard them, plus the overhead of the institutions they live in. Not to mention that these crimes aren't victim-less. Some crimes could be violent, maybe against someone YOU know? And crimes aren't costless either - insurance could skyrocket, and forget about being a business owner.

So, you're OK with welfare as long as people are criminalized for using it? Basically, you're willing to pay MORE money into the system for welfare as long as you get the satisfaction of knowing that these lazy-ass people are behind bars? Or dead on the side of the road? Or living in a box under an overpass? Not a big fan of human rights are you?

Minimum wage is a joke, and should be abolished. I agree that you can't live on it, but those jobs aren't meant to support a family of 12. If you can't make it on the money you're paid what do you do? Live a little less large, or get a better job. That's what people who take responsibility for their lives do.

I almost agree with the logic, but that's not how everyone thinks and you can't FORCE them to think that way. In the perfect world no one would live beyond their means, everyone would have enough self-pride to pick their asses up off the street, quit blaming everyone else for their problems, and be a productive member of society -- but let's get real here, that's never going to happen and your "tough love" approach won't work either, because the poor people would revolt and then all your welfare money would have to be spent on security systems, 18 ft moats around your house, electrified barbed wire fences, and armored vehicles because of the daily constant threat of being in public. Cool things, I know, but I don't want to live in a Police-State, do you?

Again, I really don't have to look further than my own nose to know that the "welfare" system in this country has created generation after generation of people who look at it as an entitlement. That they somehow "deserve" this handout. I think its time we ended it.

And you're entitled to that opinion, but it's my opinion that the welfare system is the lesser of two evils given the Pandora's Box of societal and economic issues that'll arise if you do that.

Thats about as technical as I cared to make it. I could get more involved if you like

I agree with all that, but I was wondering if anyone had any hard numbers or spec sheets for forks -- I can't find any (admittedly I haven't looked that hard), but I suppose that the hard numbers lie as classified information inside the manufacturers of the bike and suppliers of the forks. Given the second-order nature of hydraulically damped suspension, I'd even settle for a Force vs. Displacement curve.

Free-body diagram time?

Using the 'busa as an example, which has a 24º rake. If the bike is 550lbs with fluids and you assume the claimed 49R/51F weight distribution = 281lbs on the front wheel at the "zero" point, which at 24º rake is 307lbs [281/cos(24º)] total force (281lbs normal force, and 26lbs horizontal force holding the tire in front of the bike).

With a rider, mass becomes 383lbs at the front wheel = 419lbs total force.

Rim + Tire size = 20.3" diameter [17" rims + 120mm*0.7 aspect ratio then convert to inches]

If the pothole is 3" deep, the angle of attack becomes 31º above the ground plane (according to AutoCAD); although the bike won't be level which will reduce the rake ~ 3º over the wheelbase = 21º

If the pothole is 6" deep, the angle becomes 44º; yet again, the 6" will affect the 'level' of the bike and decrease the rake effectively ~ 6º = 18º

Of course you have to take into account the weight distribution has shifted (Front tire in pot hole will load the bike more on the front, when the rear tire is on "level" ground)

At 70mph, the bike has a momentum of 750lbs*70mph = 52500 lbs*mph (p=mv). Now let's assume the front tire is in the 6" pothole, and the weight ratio is now 30R/70F; therefore the front tire has momentum of 36750 lbs*mph and it will be looking to maintain momentum throughout the pothole event.

The bike must cover 1209600 lbs*in/s2 (front wheel gravity force over 6" vertical) in a distance of 8.67 in @ 70mph (1231.92 in/s) or in 0.007seconds.

= 8513 lbs*in/s (upward force); and since I don't know the spring rate / dampening, I can't solve for the lbs force

= 8816 lbs*in/s (horizontal force); same as above

And now, it gets way more complicated, and my AutoCAD is getting squiggles everywhere, so I stopped.

(And I'm sure I messed up somewhere...check my work, please!)

The engineer in me is dying to know... If the suspensions can handle coming down on wheelies and doing endos and whatnot, how big do these potholes have to be before actual DAMAGE results? Just curious...

You think it's more likely you'll get tossed from the bike due to the pothole before it actually breaks something?

Hmmm, interesting. You're opinion on my opinion is skewed JRMMiii. I haven't been argueing with you at all. I'm just tired of you having to turn everything into a debate. You're putting words in my mouth now, claiming you know what my purpose was for this thread. You are seeming like a hypocrite now.

It wasn't meant to be hypocritical, but it is a little ironic how you don't like that I pass judgment on your intentions, yet you can pass yours when you've never personally met this Jasper lady...

Don't post things that are debatable, and I won't debate with you. Problem solved. Like I said, if you can post your opinions, it's only fair game I can post mine -- assuming we have that freedom on these boards, which according to the rules, I'm not being sexist, racist, or advertising, so I think I'm in the clear.

Dude I'm gathering lately that you're a sissy. This isn't English class. Sorry if you think it's skewed. For homework you can do your own research ok? I'm sure your findings will elaborate more on your sissiness.

I don't know where you equate sissiness with being educated, or seeking to educate yourself. It's funny how when people run out of options or facts, they resort to name-calling.

People are too much like lemmings and just believe all the shit they're fed. If you can come in and post skewed stuff like that to support some personal belief you have, the least I can do is try to dig deeper into the issue and make people aware of the things that get 'buried' that don't support their viewpoint, or at the very minimum, educate myself on some of the additional problems we're facing in America today.

If you posted it as something that was funny or something, I wouldn't have touched it -- but you posted this thing in an effort to spread politicizing bullshit and start this "everyone jump on the bandwagon and agree that welfare is bad"-thread. It's just a shame more people aren't open minded enough or diligent enough to seek out the facts themselves. Just because I defend things or do MY research doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the stuff I defend. I have my own views and I spend just as much time researching opposing viewpoints as I do my own.

Woah...take a deep breath of real air, and put down the crack pipe, my liberal, tree hugging, welfare supporting little buddy.

You have no idea how off-base that is, but whatev

YOU need to re-read what YOU posted. This broad has never paid for anything in her life, according to the article. Explain to me how she qualifies for a program that YOU said required you to have a fucking job???

In reality it IS as simple as finding a FUCKING JOB. If you have a job, go to work, and pay for the shit you have, the system works. Thats what I do, my girlfriend does, and many many other people do.

What are the the "secondary and tertiary consquences of the decisions being made that directly AND indirectly affect people"? Gimme a break man. The fact that someone can suck of the government tit for nearly 60 years and not be institutionalized is absolute bullshit.

Tell you what. Why don't you double up on your "contribution" to this lifestyle choice? That way I can reduce my contribution.

Alright, lucky for you, I have the time to do this, but normally I don't make it a habit to hand-hold people through this...

1) Click first link in Nick's post

2) 13th paragraph down, under 'Added Expenses' -- the first time they make reference to Sharon Jasper

3) "A HANO voucher covers her rent on a unit in an old Faubourg St. John home, but she said she faced several hundred dollars in deposit charges and now faces a steep utility bill."

4) THUS, this is how I deduced she's a qualified participant in the HANO program.

5) Reading the HANO literature I set forth in my prior post, to qualify you must meet certain criteria.

6) THEREFORE, Ms. Jasper must meet said criteria to be part of the program.

Where is my logic flawed in that? That is how I deduced she qualifies... satisfied now Todd?

Secondary and tertiary consequences like, what if there are no jobs, or no employers willing to hire people because of their race or work ethic? What if they're disabled? What if they're too old? What if these people just flat out refuse to get a job? How do you deal with the increase in crime? How do you deal with the people in the street, begging for change? You just going to let bodies pile up until people decide to get a job? You can't be serious that it's just THAT easy to get a better than minimum wage job, because you sure as hell can't live off minimum wage. So do you increase the minimum wage? Or just have people work more hours? If they work more hours, should they get overtime? Should they get benefits? How would that affect employers and their hiring practices then?

C'mon, you gotta think farther ahead than your nose.

To start off, both Todd and Dweezel...you both must've glanced over the very last point in my previous post, about how that text that Nick copied wasn't from the NEWS. It was from some right-wing blog that added a lot of the quotes to make it incendiary. Some snippets are true, but a lot of it is 'interjected opinion'.

What do we do with these people? FORCE them to get to work by cutting the subsidy after 6 months. I don't care what kind of job she may or may not be qualified for, I'm tired of bustin my dick so that some people can get a free ride.

With everything she has, and everything she's gotten, I kinda doubt that it would be cheaper to put them in prison.

Wrong... read the stuff I posted in the other thread

http://www.ohio-riders.net/showthread.php?t=8687&page=6

This woman has been in the "system" virtually ALL HER LIFE. I really don't care who or what she "sabotages" along the way. Bottom line??? WTF? Bottom line is this woman has a place to live and a big fucking television because people who WORK EVERY DAY paid for it.

...

Dude, this lady's been on the dole for 57 years. She doesn't even come CLOSE to qualifying for that program. I'd say you need to do a little more research into what exactly section 8 is.

Umm, obviously she DOES qualify if thats what the article said?? If you have any research of your own to refute this, I'd be willing to read it.

Dude, if you're cool with giving people something for nothing, thats fine with me. I'm not, so why should I be forced to participate?

Maybe you could pay my share?

Just because I defend the welfare system does not mean 'I'm cool with giving something for nothing'. I don't know why people think that. The welfare system SERVES a purpose, all social programs serve SOME KIND of purpose (or aim to at least). Everyone's logic of, "Just go out and get a Goddamned job!" is NOT A SOLUTION. If it were that simple, people would do it. So, I'm all ears for people to give their take on how all these problems with the "system" should be fixed, but you have to think deeper than whats right in front of your face. Put a little more thought than, "Just go get a job". You have to think of the secondary and tertiary consquences of the decisions being made that directly AND indirectly affect people.

This goes back to my point about welfare in the universal healthcare thread. Yes, there are people that do abuse the system, are ungrateful, and unappreciative. But, what else do we do with these people? We can't kill them off, it's cheaper to pay them welfare than to stick them in prision, and -- I don't think that lady is qualified enough to be a Walmart greeter let alone hold a job of any importance.

Bottom line: I'd rather have someone working that has a little self-pride than to force this 60-yr-old lady to get a job where she'd end up sabotaging herself or just getting in everyones way. Flat screen or not, this story was reported in the way it was reported because someone has an agenda against welfare. None of you know the exact circumstances or nor do you know what or why this lady is Section 8 beyond "she doesn't want to work".

Just to ENLIGHTEN all of you, the article mentioned she's on the HANO voucher program (text copied from http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/miscdocs/docs-231/Resources/New/SURVIVAL%20GUIDE%20-%20revised%2011-29-07.pdf):

HANO Voucher Program - Become a Homeowner

HANO offers a program in which Section 8 vouchers can be used to purchase a

home. Participants must become financially fit, be a first-time homeowner, be

employed for at least a year, satisfactorily complete HANO's pre-assistance

homeownership and housing counseling program, attend post-purchase

counseling and monthly homebuyer club meetings, and earn an annual salary of

at least $10,300 [2,000 hours x Min wage of $5.25/hr]. For more information call Audrey Williams, lead case manager

in HANO's Homeownership Department, at (504) 670-3428.

[Emphasis is my own]

If you dig even further, which people don't because they don't want to WORK to get information (kind of like welfare of information??), you'll see that Section 8 homeowner voucher program gives people one time LUMP sum payment to cover a downpayment on qualified homes, then (if I read it correctly) will use further Section 8 assistance to cover the mortgage payment (when necessary). Anyone that knows about Section 8 also knows there's a "one-strike" and you're out policy, so you can figure at least this lady isn't bad at paying bills on time.

I'd be upset too if I was in a program where I was trying to BUY a house, and then they want to knock it down -- forcing me to start the process all over again, somewhere else. You want to get these people OFF the system, but everytime the SYSTEM changes the rules, they have to go right back into the SYSTEM.

And regarding the text you posted below the picture Nick... I found your source for THAT inflammatory text -- hell, the title of it is "A Skewed View" obviously to incite this exact sort of response from people.

I wish this site offered every smiley on the web.

Are you serious? Or are you just faking being:supergay:

Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the boards my friend.

Actually, no. But thanks for playing. Electro-static paint is used for things like metal poles, school lockers, etc. A positive charge is applied to the metal. The paint is negatively charged. The paint wraps around the metal like a magnet. No over-spray, and all of the metal is covered uniformly.

Powder coating is similar, but involves baking.

Any of you guys/gals catch when Flounder tried to act smarter than he actually was? Fucking hilarious.

My dad used to own a painting company. I painted school lockers as a summer job. Electro-static paint is freaking awesome.

I second that. I've dealt with different paint specs and toured many-a-facility that makes parts for the auto company I work for (Tier 1 supplier). Powder-coat and e-coat are two different processes. Coincidentally, either of them pass our 96-hour salt fog testing.

Well I know a way I can:

Where'd you get the cool smiley? EmoSuicideSmileys.com or SmileysForWristCutters.com?

You can lose fat, but you can't lose UGLY!

So true... sucks being stuck w/ this mug of a face.

You can drink an ugly girl, pretty -- but can't drink a fat girl, thin. I think the same would apply for us (me).

And on the fat topic, when you have been over weight since 6-8 yrs old self esteem just doesn't exist, and for me will never come back simple plain truth.

Same boat. I was the chubby kid and finally I got sick of being made fun of and called names, so I lost weight, hit the gym and lifted, and it was like straight out of "Mike Jones - Back Then".

8th grade - 5'6" 200lbs

Entering Freshman year - 5'9" 140lbs

All I ate that entire summer was preztels in between running 6+ miles a day, EVERYDAY. I'd run before football practice, I'd run AT football practice, and I'd come home and run some more. Of course, then everyone thought I was anorexic.

I guess I'm the other extreme. I'm an arrogant prick now, with no sympathy for fat people, since I used to be one (and I'm creeping back up on it)

I went from 270lb in 2000 down to 163lbs by 2003, and it didn't help my self esteem any so now back up to 215. Trying to get back down to 170s for racing this year, but I am starting to think I won't be able to do it.

How could that NOT be a self-esteem booster? That's a metric shit-tonne of weight - just knowing you're capable of having the discipline to do it should boost your self-esteem.

Now that I've dated the same girl for 7 years, being in it for the ladies isn't that big of a factor anymore. Though dropping weight for racing purposes is motivation - it's just not that good of one. I'm back up to 200lbs, but with a lot less flab, but still isn't good for the hp/weight ratio.

Not to Hijack the thread or anything, but all you racers out there -- what's the best way to get started? Buy an old sv and tape up the glass -- I don't even know what a good CHEAP starter bike would be? I've been reading up on Fasttrax about the Nelson Ledges track series, but I have ZERO road course experience. My roots lie with the straightliners (namely since it's a LOT cheaper than road racing), but I'd like to try it... ya know, attempt to branch out a little.

When I went to college, I was 175lbs,, In college, I jumped up to 245lbs due to all the greasy foods, drinking, smoking and lack of exercise... The summer before senior year of college I got sick of all the girls telling me I was like their big brother when I tried asking them on a date so I dropped 65lbs in one summer.. Ever since then, Ive been working out and Im in better shape now and stronger then I have ever been.

Getting some 'tang is a pretty good motivator to do just about anything. That's why I went from 200lbs to 140lbs in 4 months back when I was in high school. Same as Flounder. And I've never myself get "like that" again.

The only problem with the situation we've got here is that "Fat Chicks Need Love too". So as long as everyone lowers their standards...this will continue.

Support the "luxury tax" on the fatty foods. Bring a whole new meaning to people putting their money where their mouth is.

That would work, A scale for the Shopper to stand on as the Clerk checks them out.. It measures height from a sensor and weight.

If the ratio is a certain point it dictates what foods you can buy.

No, that would be discrimination. It would just dictate that a 5'2" 350lbs person would have to pay $150 for the box of twinkies, or they have the option of getting the $2 package of celery stalks instead.

Of course all this would have to be kept track of and the excess funds collected over the 'baseline' cost of food would have to go to funding schools, or health clubs, or some 'better / healthier' institution.

I think they should make all these activities a little harder for people, just so we DO get our daily exercise in. Buffets should be isolated by a 360º treadmill that is set at 5 mph (not fast, but not slow) so people actually have to want food bad enough to hustle and get it. Or put the buffets up a 100-step flight of stairs with down escalators only (so people don't spill food coming back down).

There are about 100 other crazy schemes I could come up with to incentive people to stay in shape. What about -- all prices of groceries are scaled by the calorie content multiplied by your weight vs. height? Fat people pay MUCH more for unhealthy food than in shape people, so they either eat less food or don't have money to do other things (which keeps them out of my way). Discuss amongst yourselves....

http://www.naafa.org/

That makes me want to

Where's the National Association for NOT being a Lard-ass? There's nothing that pisses me off more than those "cart people" -- they drive to Walmart, circle the lot for 40 minutes to make sure they get the nearest spot to the entrance, walk to the door, then hop on an electric cart and ride their fat asses around the store, where, inevitably they end up in my way and take up time from my life (that I'll never get back) because of their fatness. The only saving grace is those electric carts have small baskets so they can't possibly fit that much food in the cart.

They should have "fat hours" in some of these stores -- like the 24 hour Walmarts, where from 10PM to 2AM they widen the aisles and let all the fatties go nuts. Kinda like the state has drunk driving hours from 2:30AM to 4:30AM every night. What?! That's not a real program!?

You work out at the Gym alone??? When I was going strong I was working out about 1.5 hours alone every night. And most times i just played PS2 while i was on the exercise bike for an 1-2 hours. Not having anyone to BS with after 1-2 years of working out got old.

I never minded working out alone, I used to... but now, there's still a few stragglers that are keeping up with their New Years Resolutions (which I'm sure will be done shortly, as soon as the nice weather hits). And I convinced the ol' lady to come in and workout -- but that's more for MY benefit

So what's your next trick, to see what she does for peanut butter????

:lol:

I don't know if I wanna know what you SOUTHERN Ohio boys are up to...

Just messing though, Nick -- we shouldn't bust chops about a guys dead dog. It was probably a good one.

I am just sitting here at work thinking I really have no desire to go home and workout, as usual. Working out alone sucks, even if I am always alone and should be used to it.

I workout at the gym AT work. At least you get to go home and watch TV or crank the tunes while you lift or run. So not only do I have to suffer through another hour of mundane-ness (which probably isn't even a word) I have another 1.5 hours I spend here in the gym 5-days a week. I'm never home before 6:30PM.

But, it's all about doing my part to look fly for the ladies, right?

Judging from all the people on here, there's not a lot of productive work getting done on a Monday afternoon...we're busy discussing important health topics. No fat chicks!

At 6'0... I've bounced anywhere from 174lbs to up to 220lbs, also an athlete my entire life. There's still no excuse for being fat AND out of shape. At 275, as long as you're active then no one cares, just like you said. Its just that I don't want your fatass on an airplane next to me, when my company won't spring for 1st class, wheezing in my face and your love rolls spilling over in my seat. That's the true test. If I have to lift your spare tire out of the way to buckle my seatbelt, then you're fat. I think everyone can see the difference between a BIG guy and a FAT guy.