tvashtarkatena

Europe has different emissions standards (more lax), as well as safety standards. Personally, I think America's gone way overboard on the safety requirements; something that has really hampered the ability to make truly inexpensive, light weight, efficient personal transport. Americans do suffer culturally Excessive Safety Drive; most surveyed SUV owners cite a feeling of safety (they're actually more statistically dangerous to ride in, actually, than a standard sedan) as their number one purchasing criteria. Not the small Euro cars are that unsafe. There's a video on Youtube of a Smartcar heading a jersey barrier head on at 70 mph; the occupants would have survived with minor injuries. The thing didn't even think about flipping over, either. Contrast that with the Range Rover I saw flip over on the University Bridge this past year because it grazed a side barrier at a whopping 20 mph. What an utter piece of overhyped shit. Legislate mandatory motorcycle use: Eliminate global warming, traffic congestion, road rage (nobody can hear you yell), our domestic transportation industry woes (Harley's doing just fine) and overpopulation all at once.

No. 9, No. 9, No. 9, No. 9, No. 9.... almost complete.

Smelted: Las Vegas NV Poured through Great Lakes IL, Artesia, Vallejo, and Napa CA Forged: Sonoma CA Tempered: Annapolis MD, Berkeley CA Currently rusting in Seattle WA, with a brief stint in Portland OR

Invincibility. Can't sleep. Food gone. Cigarettes gone. Need bismuth or pyrolitic graphite. My God, the insects!

"It's about political freedom and control" is neither a point nor an argument. It's not even a sentence. Guns are one of four things: a toy, a defense weapon, a fetish, or collector's art. They have no other roles. Gun ownership carries absolutely zero political power of any kind in this country. If we were in a tiny banana republic with a poorly equipped army, it might be a different story, but here there is no chance, zero, of an armed citizen's uprising getting past the first volley fired. You'd be wiped out immediately. You'd definitely make a statement, though. Political power here is achieved through electoral power, money, influence, friendship, and the threat of an unraveling of the social contract in times of desperation. The latter has happened; Watts, Chicago, New York, New Orleans, and all the other chaotic upheavels in our history, but these were very different from what Bill's talking about. For one thing, they didn't involve very many guns. (I've already noted that bombs are the weapon of choice for an grossly outmatched antagonist). For another, they weren't planned, and they had lost their political agenda. They were simply desperate, pissed off people who'd lost it or were wreaking some recreational havoc. The civil war provided on exception, but such a region wide revolt would not be possible in today's more homogenized, geographically mixed country. When you started shooting, your neighbor, rather than the National Guard, might well be the first one to put you down. There is no connect the dots line between private gun ownership and how government behaves, other than the NRA's standard package of voting issues. Pure electoral political power, whatever 'threat's individual may fantasize they pose to the government simply isn't noticed by said government. It therefore exists only in the minds of those who have some otherwise unsatisfied emotional need to believe in it. It would probably be more productive for those folks if, rather than preparing for the Mother of all Battles, they examine what they are missing and find a more realistic way to fulfull it.

[video:youtube]h_eBqlFpnNY Speaking of turds, would anyone care to off the emo fuck in this vid for me?

I briefly visited Argentina during their period of hyperinflation. Several areas had taken to printing their own local money, Wild West style. It was strange but wonderful to get a 5 course, white linen steak dinner at a 5 star restaurant for $2.50. On the same trip, I spent 3 weeks in Peru, which only had 8000% inflation. The heaviest item in my backpack was the stack of cash, which was being flown in from several out of country sources because the domestic mints had long since run out of capacity. I liked the Peruvians in general, they were a bit more engaging than their Bolivian counterparts, but man, did they love to steal stuff, and they were damn good at it. I suffered a few failed attempts but never lost anything. The biggest pain in the ass for the tourons I met who did get stung was not what they had stolen, but continually having their clothing and backpacks slit open. I wonder if that behavior has subsided a bit since then.

Even a cursory observation of turds can be instructive.

You're making the ridiculous implication the Medvedev's speech would have been somehow different had McCain been elected; conveniently projecting your own political bias into the Russian's actions. Oldest propaganda trick in the book. I believe it's called blowing smoke up your own ass. I reality, of course, an increasingly belligerent Russia would have greatly preferred a McCain victory, so that the bulk of our forces would continued to be tied up in our Iraqi money pit. Under Obama, many of those forces will either be freed up or redeployed closer to the Russian border. This fairly obvious conclusion would have required you to go a few steps beyond the "liberals are pussies" ceiling of your analytical capability, so I'm not too surprised at your assertions.

Even a tapeworm is beautiful to another tapeworm.

It is amazing politcally locked down I feel by not owning a gun. complete sarcasm..... I think Bill should increase his political freedom by waving his loaded arsenal around at the local mall. There may be a temporary hiatus in his physical freedom, however... Be sure and pick up a soap on a rope while you're there, Bill!

"Put silver wings, on my son's chest...." This is kind of like saying "If vastly superior aliens ever invaded, I'd find a way to defend ourselves against them." Uh, OK. Whatever you say, myan.

Doing so will mean walking away from a long term American strategic plan and billions of dollars already invested. I don't think they can do it. Sorry, time will tell though. I didn't think Clinton could balance the budget like the first campaign pledge stated and was happily proven incorrect on that one. Here's to hope and change: No. Doing so will be to walk away from a waste of a trillion dollars and pouring 340 million dollars a day down a shithole and getting nothing back. The money already invested is sunk cost; completely irrelevant. We have virtually no criteria for success in Iraq anyway, so I say Mission Accomplished as of...right now. Bye, Iraqis. Sorry about completely fucking your entire region up, but the shit's now hitting the fan at home. Most of our troops hate you hadjis and the sandbox you live in anyway. Later.

Or repeatedly stab your tiny balls with a dull fork until you bleed out; basically a real life enactment of what you do online on a daily basis.

How will you "do the right thing" for your country? Plenty of guns around the house I'd wager, but the mess you'll leave the missus! I'd go with pills. Oh, and don't forget the adult diaper and plastic sheets.

Jayb's apparently unaware of the basic business principle of sunk costs. His is, as usual, a moralistic argument the floats far, far above the world in a clean, bright atmosphere, devoid of oxygen. It doesn't really matter that the auto companies fucked up. That's in the past; there's nothing to be done about it. What matters is what to do next to mitigate the damage. Jayb has neither the life experience nor an acceptance of how the American public actually behaves to have even a remote understanding of what would happen to the entire American economy if this country lost its last large manufacturing industry. Without this understanding, he's left with his usual, tired cliche's about the free market and encouraging innovation; par for the course for someone who knows little to nothing about the commercial world. The government isn't in the business of funding private industry, so Jayb's argument that an auto company bailout ultimately diverts funds from more deserving companies is still born. This is an emergency measure to prevent a national economic disaster, nothing less. Those more deserving companies will be still born if the failure of our largest manufacturing industry takes everyone else with it. Jayb's niceties about how deserving they are will be just that. In any case, those companies do not need government assistance. The auto industry does. The American economy, even in the best of times, could never afford to lose it's auto industry. The job loss ripple effect would be far, far too devastating. It's not the best of times, not that a purist like Jayb would notice such trivialities. The government not only should, but must bail out the auto companies. Not to do so would be like watching your next door neighbors house burn down because you know they never change the batteries in their smoke alarms...and ultimately watching your own house burn down as well. It's a ideological fool's argument in the face of a much dirtier, grimmer, and more complex reality. In return, the government should obtain a huge equity stake, and legislate the required production of exactly what this country needs in terms of fuel efficient vehicles to achieve energy independence. Some say heads should roll. Fine. Kill the auto executives for all I care, but that industry must survive for the economic health of the country as whole.

he's a wonderful singer. inspirational. Ashcroft provided almost endless entertainment during his tenure. When "Si Senor Gonzales" came along, however, I realized that Ashcroft was not the bottom, nor anywhere near it. It's still incredible to me how good that criminal partisan fuck Gonzales made Ashcroft look. In addition enacting the SS's version of American human rights policy and wiping his filthy ass with our Constitution, Gonzales put icing on his legacy by completely politicized the Department of Justice. All with Bush's complete, smiling approval, of course. Fucking.Incredible. Gonzales is one guy that truly deserves to be ass rammed in a maximum security prison for the rest of his life.

What I saw from the McCain campaign and its lackeys: -Obama is a terrrorist (not true) -Obama is a muslim (not true) What I saw from the Obama campaign and its lackeys: -McCain is an "erratic", tempermental old man (true) -Palin is woefully unqualified for the position of VP (true) The difference between the two campaigns was stark. McCain, a life long mysogenist, has led a sordid love life full of prostitutes and extra marital affairs. His ethical record based on the Keating 5 scandal alone is abysmal. Obama's campaign never touched any of those issues. All in all, Obama was true to his word about running a campaign focused on the issues. In sharp contrast, McCain/Palin went after every scrap of guilt by association they could find, which amounted to nothing. When the Ayers thing got a big yawn, they tried a blatantly racist campaign to link Obama with Islam and terrorism. Disgusting. McCain had nothing on the issues save a doomed-to-fail-again re-hash of Bush's policies. It's no wonder he didn't focus on them much, instead choosing to try to smear a man who easily rose above it. Towards the end, McCains pathetic focus on Obama, devoid of any real message save the tired, anti-liberal tripe and impossibly weak innuendo that provides red meat for the nation's more ignorant half, bordered on pathological. He pounded that same nail with that same hammer, despite continually sliding poll numbers, over and over and... McCain ran the most underhanded, untruthful, and despicable campaigns I can remember. His addition of Trailer Trash Barbie fit the tone of his lie machine perfectly. The man is a complete and utter tool. Anyone who fell for his bullshit should probably kill themselves now by the most expeditious means possible. We need to voluntarily depopulate to mitigate resource depletion; it might as well be the dumber half that checks out.

Um...blacks drive Esplanades. Or Escalades. Everglades? Anyway, Cadillacs.

A Fur-trader convention....why? As astute CC.comers - you heard it here first back in April. Long before the rest of the nation had caught wind, as they still haven't to this day. Now the Fur Trading accusation is close, so close to publication. I had heard it was the hairdresser though, so maybe you can't believe everything you hear. Got to give Obama credit for not pulling this one out of the closet during his race against her in the primaries, especially when he was behind in the polls. Big props to dude. Link "At first it seemed to be just another vicious little rumour started by Village Voice editor Michael Musto back in August - but now, what started as an unfounded piece of gossip is starting to get credible confirmation from various reputable DC sources (albeit off the record of course...) Hillary Clinton has been having a lesbian affair with her top female aide, the sexy Huma Abedin. This would not be the first time that Hillary has been accused of being a lesbian, however this rumour would be the first to be backed by so many high-level reputable sources. Amongst those corroborating the story of Hilary's lesbian affair, is highly respected journalist and author Ron Rosenbaum. In his October 30 article “Shocking Inside DC Scandal Rumor: A Media Ethics Dilemma” Rosenbaum said the Los Angeles Times has a story “wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate” and they are currently ’sitting on it’ because the paper can't decide “the complex ethics of whether and when to run it.” Although Rosenbaum didn’t name Clinton specifically there is enough evidence that she is in fact the target of his accusation. So what do you think? Hillary Clinton a Lesbian? 1st ever Lesbian president? Maybe she just wants to even the score with Bill by also sleeping with a female aide!" Frankly, speaking for myself and most guys on this web site: I want to see more pictures. Like hot weather, close couple beach pictures say.....NOT that it's my business of course. Just sayin' is all..... You want to see Hilary Clinton in a bikini? DOOD. Put the guns down. Get help.

Wasn't replying to you, Miss Center of the Universe.

Far from certain, this view is probably more of a young male beat off fantasy. For one thing, WACO et all produced a strong negative reaction among only a very small, extremist part of the population. While much of the country thought it a bit of overkill, they also though David Koresh was a dangerous lunatic and that the government had a right to curtail his activities. The only guy that did anything in response to WACO was a kook named McVeigh. No one else lifted a finger in protest. It was, for the most part, a non-issue. And there in lies the rub. a) Militia groups are very small, very extreme, and viewed very negatively by the vast majority of Americans. b) Any larger attempt to organize against the government would be quashed immediately, given the government's new surveillance powers and the new crime of Domestic Terrorism, which carries extremely harsh penalties. Organizing such a widespread movement is simply no longer possible in the United States. c) Politically, the very gun toting folks you speak of are the most loyal to the American flag; they would be the least likely group to rebel, not the most. d) violent insurgent movements in the US have used bombs, not guns. Bombs are a far more effective way to wreak havoc against a more heavily armed foe (Gee, ya think?). The "Bloodbath route" is an excellent choice for morons with a death wish, but any group seriously considering causing trouble will stock up on fertilizer, not ammo. In other words, how armed the population is doesn't matter at all. The government is not at all afraid of widespread armed resistance, which it realizes is a complete fantasy, and it is incredibly prepared and equipped to nip it at the bud with overwhelming force. If you've ever witnessed or participated in an anti-war demonstration, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Hundreds of cops in riot gear with full automatic weapons and armored vehicles. Um, no. The revolution ain't gonna happen that way. Government is afraid of two things; First and foremost, being voted out of office. Our democracy still works. Why beat off about guns and ammo? Just get involved politically. That's where the power is. Government is also afraid of chaos (riots, etc). This is a very different animal from the organized, armed resistance you apparently spend a good deal of effort fantasizing about. This is an unraveling of society our of desperation; something that is possible in troubled times.

Sobo's original post was obviously a satirical potshot at how manufactured and subjective our definition of race is. Apparently, the satire was too realistic for some here; they just didn't get it.

Reduction/elimination of nukes was not an issue during the election the blatantly obvious reason that our national house was burning down so we had other more pressing issues to worry about. The idea that Obama supports or supported unilateral nuclear disarmament is as moronic as the poster who tried to float it here. The idea that worldwide nuclear disarmament would not be a good idea is as moronic as the poster who floated it here. From a deterrence standpoint, our nuclear arsenal constitutes ridiculous overkill. A huge majority of that arsenal is legacy inventory; we built it, oh well, let's just keep it around, necessary or not. From a budgetary standpoint, nuclear disarmament, while an excellent idea to trim some waste while promoting good will in the world, will probably not save us that much. We need to mothball some carrier battle groups, boomers, and reduce our ground forces for the kind of savings we'll need to survive this financial crisis intact. And speaking of trimming the officer corpse; after 8 years of blank check military spending, there's probably many, many tons of fat to trim there. Our military is bloated beyond belief at this point. Step one is to get the fuck out of Iraq. As has been stated by proponents of the invasion on this forum; 70% of the country is in the hands of the Iraqis, and attacks are way down. Good enough. Mission Accomplished. Bye bye. $340 MILLION A DAY. Yeah, we can probably use that elsewhere right about now.

That's a huge and probably wrong assumption on your part. Exactly: Obama already has backed off the "get out of Iraq" pledge during his campaign. His selection of chief of staff confirms a continuation of that. We are and have been spending sh*tloads of $ on those permanent bases already. Link Will Obama walk away from that investment and change US foreign policy on his own?? Doubtful for many reasons. It will be interesting to see how, or even if, we get the Iraqis onboard with this idea of a long term US presence there. Thats a huge and probably wrong assumption on your part. The chief of staff does not enact foreign policy. People are reading way too much into this appointment; suddenly there are predictions about how every aspect of Obama's presidency will go based on the selection of this one man. Pretty ridiculous. Emanuel may have been chosen for his organizational and administrative skills far more than for his political philosophy, which, after, doesn't have to coincide with the President's at all, since the C.O.S. does not decide policy, he simply helps implement it. Who knows? Certainly no one here, that's for damn sure. In any case, the C.O.S. isn't usually a heavy hitter like the AG, the Secretaries, or Supreme Court judges. Relax.