| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/30/2008 03:53:27 PM · #701 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What a Hummer says about the driver:
1. I don't give a F about the environment.
2. I squander resources because I can so F you.
3. I don't really give a F about anyone else.
4a. I have "Little Man Disease". Look at my "Big Truck".
4b. I'm empowered. Look at my "Big Truck".
5. Let them eat cake. |
If you feel so strongly about this then maybe you might want to go spend a couple months in a few 4x4/offroad forums and educate them. Or you could just stay here in the comfort of the like minded people and just whine about it. |
Interesting you should bring this up. As for forums that are dedicated to a certain thing/idea/lifestyle/whatever, the reason people of like mind band together is because it gives them a sense of belonging, and doesn't really have much to do with any sense of reality.
Growing up in Alberta, and having many, many friends and family and friends of friends and family that are AVID off-roaders, I can guarantee you one thing: Hummers (outside of the original army issue), are almost universally derided by 4x4/off-road enthusiasts. The H2/H3 are built for one reason and one reason only, status symbols. They are pretty much useless for any kind of serious off-roading, are built for street driving, and do indeed only say the things that Spazmo lists. Now, owning an original Hummer is better, but you're still going to be seen in most off-road circles as being more than just a little bit over-indulgent.
This is a society of over-indulgence though, and you don't care anyway, as you're just here to stir things up and laugh at all the answers you get, so happy Hummering and thank you very much for contributing to the problems that you'll never admit to existing. |
You know nothing of what you speak. The only factory vehicle that compares with the H's (H1/H2/H3) ability is the Jeep Rubicon. All other vehicles must be modified aftermarket to do half what a stock H can do. The H3 surpasses the H2 in nearly every category except maybe towing and horsepower. FYI. Further more, Jeep gets a pass from the enviornmentalists while delivery worse mpg. Go figure. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 03:55:29 PM · #702 |
Originally posted by Prash:
So Flash, do you agree?
- helping ones own family is a selfish cause
- helping many many instead is a more worthy cause |
No. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 03:56:15 PM · #703 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will say that simply demonizing the Right, as has been done in the last dozen posts, is no more productive than the Right demonizing the Left. I saw some blanket statements up above and I think they are frankly pretty silly. |
It's hard for common sense to gain any traction, isnt it? |
Yupper. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:00:43 PM · #704 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What a Hummer says about the driver:
1. I don't give a F about the environment.
2. I squander resources because I can so F you.
3. I don't really give a F about anyone else.
4a. I have "Little Man Disease". Look at my "Big Truck".
4b. I'm empowered. Look at my "Big Truck".
5. Let them eat cake. |
If you feel so strongly about this then maybe you might want to go spend a couple months in a few 4x4/offroad forums and educate them. Or you could just stay here in the comfort of the like minded people and just whine about it. |
Interesting you should bring this up. As for forums that are dedicated to a certain thing/idea/lifestyle/whatever, the reason people of like mind band together is because it gives them a sense of belonging, and doesn't really have much to do with any sense of reality.
Growing up in Alberta, and having many, many friends and family and friends of friends and family that are AVID off-roaders, I can guarantee you one thing: Hummers (outside of the original army issue), are almost universally derided by 4x4/off-road enthusiasts. The H2/H3 are built for one reason and one reason only, status symbols. They are pretty much useless for any kind of serious off-roading, are built for street driving, and do indeed only say the things that Spazmo lists. Now, owning an original Hummer is better, but you're still going to be seen in most off-road circles as being more than just a little bit over-indulgent.
This is a society of over-indulgence though, and you don't care anyway, as you're just here to stir things up and laugh at all the answers you get, so happy Hummering and thank you very much for contributing to the problems that you'll never admit to existing. |
You know nothing of what you speak. The only factory vehicle that compares with the H's (H1/H2/H3) ability is the Jeep Rubicon. All other vehicles must be modified aftermarket to do half what a stock H can do. The H3 surpasses the H2 in nearly every category except maybe towing and horsepower. FYI. Further more, Jeep gets a pass from the enviornmentalists while delivery worse mpg. Go figure. |
It's not my opinion, it is the general opinion of hundreds of people that engage in this activity.
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 16:03:20. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:03:06 PM · #705 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
If you want to change my mind as Eqite has done... |
He changed your mind? It seems to me you only gave him credit when he defended something you already believe.
Originally posted by Flash:
Regardless of whether you accept this or not, your stance in this post has given you immense respect with me. To actually type what was obviously true in the midst of this pool of sharks is remarkable to me. |
Doesn't sound like he changed your mind about anything. Is there some dramatic shift of position you've had? Please share it. |
Louis - you asked me what I thought was a sincere question. I gave you a sincere answer. Since then it is nothing more that what I've always seen from your posts. I will return to ignoring them. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:38:25 PM · #706 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This of course is DP challenge and I cahllenge you to go spend several months in an opposing views forum (say a 4x4/offroad/Hummer Forum) as I have done here and express your convictions. I doubt you'll have the stomach for it. Or you can keep within the safety of those who think like you do and pile on the one under attack. And people question why I think as I do. If you want to change my mind as Eqsite has done, then you could start by matching his stand up presentations. |
Yeah......I'd certainly have no place in an off-raod/4x4 forum unless I'd do somthing like, oh.......grab an old CJ-5, drop a small block in it, use an adaptor and have a Muncie in it, put military axles in it, design my own top, have front and rear Posis in it, cut fenderwell headers into it, weld up my own design exhaust......all back in '78 before most people even knew you could do half that stuff?
Or perhaps have had a succession of 4WD/AWD vehicles like Scouts I & II (You DO know the REAL difference between 4WD and AWD, don't you?), Blazers, full size 4X4 long wheelbase trucks, and have worked on them for the last 35 years?
Oh....and a few Subarus as well? And be a died-in-the-wool AWD on the street in sports car guy, too......as in a pile of Audis I used to work on for my customers....
And have Carrera 4 experience as well?
Okay, so I sandbagged you.......but it was so easy!
You really ought to get used to the idea that you don't know it all.
I will tell you this......I know enough about 4WD and AWD to know that after all these years, there is still a lot I don't know. But I'll readily admit that because I have enough knowledge to know where I'm lacking.
BTW, when I was REALLY heavily into 4WDs when I had my Jeep with the small block......REAL 4WD guys took 'em out and played HARD with them.....ya know, the kind of stuff where if you got 'em stuck, it took TWO other trucks to get 'em out.....and more than once, we'd have to use meatball surgery to get 'em home.
We didn't have time for talking about them....we were driving them.
You're probably one of those guys who puts purty gaiters on your shocks and thinks he has an "Off-Road" vehicle.
I feel I'm actually qualified, given my credentials & experience to say that....
Your H3 is a wimp vehicle!
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:41:07 PM · #707 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will say that simply demonizing the Right, as has been done in the last dozen posts, is no more productive than the Right demonizing the Left. I saw some blanket statements up above and I think they are frankly pretty silly. |
It's hard for common sense to gain any traction, isnt it? |
Yupper. |
Isn't that why we all need to drive a 4WD? |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:45:40 PM · #708 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
If Republicans had the money Obama has, the left would be charging them with "buying the election". |
So, how do you feel about McCain spending $86 million taxpayer dollars instead of soliciting voluntary, private contributions?
I'm pretty sure this is the first (Presidential election) year that Democrats have raised more campaign contributions than the Republicans. |
1. If my memory is correct, there is a voluntary box on your annual IRS forms that one can check to donate to that very fund. That is the purpose of it. The sole purpose of it as I understand it. Therfore, it seems like every candidate should be mandated to take it as the citizens donated it for that purpose - voluntarily. Certainly candidates who promise to take it. But this year the democrats are reeling in money so the rules this year are different. Just as Bill Clinton promised in his original campaign to NOT RAISE TAXES on the middle class, it took only 26 days into office for him to renig on that promise and justify it on the back of the furture generations argument. With our current deficit, there is no way Obama can keep his promise either. But he doesn't have to. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:46:04 PM · #709 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You know nothing of what you speak. The only factory vehicle that compares with the H's (H1/H2/H3) ability is the Jeep Rubicon. All other vehicles must be modified aftermarket to do half what a stock H can do. The H3 surpasses the H2 in nearly every category except maybe towing and horsepower. FYI. Further more, Jeep gets a pass from the enviornmentalists while delivery worse mpg. Go figure. |
An H1 is a Hummer......
The rest are the same thing as what the rest of the pretend 4x4s are.....luxury station wagons with 4WD.
You wanna talk 4WD, then talk about what you have to do to have a serious vehicle.
Vinyl interiors, painted steel bumpers, STEEL wheels, air-lockers or Torsens.....the list goes on......do you know what articulation is?
Calling that vehicle that Chrysler makes a Rubicon is ridiculous.....just like most of what your limited 4WD knowledge indicates......quoting stats and specs as 4WD knowledge really doesn't cut it.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:51:02 PM · #710 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Flash:
This of course is DP challenge and I cahllenge you to go spend several months in an opposing views forum (say a 4x4/offroad/Hummer Forum) as I have done here and express your convictions. I doubt you'll have the stomach for it. Or you can keep within the safety of those who think like you do and pile on the one under attack. And people question why I think as I do. If you want to change my mind as Eqsite has done, then you could start by matching his stand up presentations. |
Yeah......I'd certainly have no place in an off-raod/4x4 forum unless I'd do somthing like, oh.......grab an old CJ-5, drop a small block in it, use an adaptor and have a Muncie in it, put military axles in it, design my own top, have front and rear Posis in it, cut fenderwell headers into it, weld up my own design exhaust......all back in '78 before most people even knew you could do half that stuff?
Or perhaps have had a succession of 4WD/AWD vehicles like Scouts I & II (You DO know the REAL difference between 4WD and AWD, don't you?), Blazers, full size 4X4 long wheelbase trucks, and have worked on them for the last 35 years?
Oh....and a few Subarus as well? And be a died-in-the-wool AWD on the street in sports car guy, too......as in a pile of Audis I used to work on for my customers....
And have Carrera 4 experience as well?
Okay, so I sandbagged you.......but it was so easy!
You really ought to get used to the idea that you don't know it all.
I will tell you this......I know enough about 4WD and AWD to know that after all these years, there is still a lot I don't know. But I'll readily admit that because I have enough knowledge to know where I'm lacking.
BTW, when I was REALLY heavily into 4WDs when I had my Jeep with the small block......REAL 4WD guys took 'em out and played HARD with them.....ya know, the kind of stuff where if you got 'em stuck, it took TWO other trucks to get 'em out.....and more than once, we'd have to use meatball surgery to get 'em home.
We didn't have time for talking about them....we were driving them.
You're probably one of those guys who puts purty gaiters on your shocks and thinks he has an "Off-Road" vehicle.
I feel I'm actually qualified, given my credentials & experience to say that....
Your H3 is a wimp vehicle! |
Reads to me that your vehicle couldn't do squat until you modified it. My point exactly. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:53:12 PM · #711 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
If you want to change my mind as Eqite has done... |
He changed your mind? It seems to me you only gave him credit when he defended something you already believe.
Originally posted by Flash:
Regardless of whether you accept this or not, your stance in this post has given you immense respect with me. To actually type what was obviously true in the midst of this pool of sharks is remarkable to me. |
Doesn't sound like he changed your mind about anything. Is there some dramatic shift of position you've had? Please share it. |
Louis - you asked me what I thought was a sincere question. I gave you a sincere answer. Since then it is nothing more that what I've always seen from your posts. I will return to ignoring them. |
Er -- okay. (?) Incidentally, I had no idea I was previously being ignored by you. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:53:49 PM · #712 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
If Republicans had the money Obama has, the left would be charging them with "buying the election". |
So, how do you feel about McCain spending $86 million taxpayer dollars instead of soliciting voluntary, private contributions?
I'm pretty sure this is the first (Presidential election) year that Democrats have raised more campaign contributions than the Republicans. |
1. If my memory is correct, there is a voluntary box on your annual IRS forms that one can check to donate to that very fund. |
That checkbox doesn't mean your taxes go up by $3. It means $3 of your taxes goes to the Presidential Election Campaign. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:56:36 PM · #713 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That checkbox doesn't mean your taxes go up by $3. It means $3 of your taxes goes to the Presidential Election Campaign. |
Incidentally, that's the ONLY say we ourselves have over how our taxes are allocated -- you might even call it an earmark ... ;-) |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 05:35:22 PM · #714 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
If Republicans had the money Obama has, the left would be charging them with "buying the election". |
So, how do you feel about McCain spending $86 million taxpayer dollars instead of soliciting voluntary, private contributions?
I'm pretty sure this is the first (Presidential election) year that Democrats have raised more campaign contributions than the Republicans. |
1. If my memory is correct, there is a voluntary box on your annual IRS forms that one can check to donate to that very fund. That is the purpose of it. The sole purpose of it as I understand it. Therfore, it seems like every candidate should be mandated to take it as the citizens donated it for that purpose - voluntarily. Certainly candidates who promise to take it. But this year the democrats are reeling in money so the rules this year are different. Just as Bill Clinton promised in his original campaign to NOT RAISE TAXES on the middle class, it took only 26 days into office for him to renig on that promise and justify it on the back of the furture generations argument. With our current deficit, there is no way Obama can keep his promise either. But he doesn't have to. |
 Flash, man, you talked about standing up in a discussion. What else have most others and I been doing here? Just because you prove you are fighting this argument alone here doesnt make what you believe a universal truth, unless you back your statements with impartial FACTS and not prejudices.
Imagine.. if I started screaming here about something controversial (there are many such topics), I will be run down by many many who will argue against it logically... but I can be stubborn and stick to what I am saying without any facts or logic to back it all up... and then 3 days and a 100 posts later, I could claim that I have a thick skin and I have the courage to stand up and face the crowd. Now if I thought about it and argued with substance, I will find many who will sit back and listen to what I have to say. But if I just choose to prove that I am a rebel and dont care what others say and only what I say is right (again with no facts or credible sources - check 'Fox' off there), that would be called impulsive insanity.. not smartness.
There is a difference between standing up for a cause you believe in (and know why you do), and just armoring yourself and screaming in front of a crowd almost telling them they are all ignorant and crazy. The latter is called stupidity.. no matter how nicely you wrap it in school-book English.
You certainly are a smart guy when it comes to Hummers for example.. and this is no satire, I mean it. But you fail when it comes to facing a knowledgible and informed opponent with logic. You remind me of a friend who would always just run out and shoot randomly at others in a video game.. ignoring the suroundings...with no logic whatsoever. His argument was: it shows I am superior and can stand up and am not scared. That was just a game.. but you prove that in real life, my friend.
I am all for supporting the one who thinks different from the crowd.. as long as it makes sense. Unfortunately you have not been able to convince a single soul on this forum over the years into believing what you believe. How do you explain that? Perhaps you lacked the facts.. or the examples that are convincing. Or perhaps you call everyone here idiot... just like your comments about the Obama-supporting-crowd?
I call upon you now. YOU stand up first with facts and answer those who bring facts too, not because you owe it, but because thats the logical way of having others respect what you believe in. A single slingshot aimed correctly is better than a randomly blurted weapon.
Can you stand up now? And respond to the facts rather than ignoring them? We can go over them one by one.
Do you want to start, my stand-up-guy?
ET: Spell check.
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 19:39:20. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 06:01:15 PM · #715 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
If Republicans had the money Obama has, the left would be charging them with "buying the election". |
So, how do you feel about McCain spending $86 million taxpayer dollars instead of soliciting voluntary, private contributions?
I'm pretty sure this is the first (Presidential election) year that Democrats have raised more campaign contributions than the Republicans. |
1. If my memory is correct, there is a voluntary box on your annual IRS forms that one can check to donate to that very fund. That is the purpose of it. The sole purpose of it as I understand it. Therfore, it seems like every candidate should be mandated to take it as the citizens donated it for that purpose - voluntarily. Certainly candidates who promise to take it. But this year the democrats are reeling in money so the rules this year are different. Just as Bill Clinton promised in his original campaign to NOT RAISE TAXES on the middle class, it took only 26 days into office for him to renig on that promise and justify it on the back of the furture generations argument. With our current deficit, there is no way Obama can keep his promise either. But he doesn't have to. |
But Obama isn't alone when it comes to campaign finance conundrums. Also in February, McCain requested to withdraw from the primary election public matching funds system. But the FEC responded that, without a quorum (four of the six FEC seats are vacant), it could not issue a formal decision. The FEC's chairman also had questions about the McCain campaign's promise, as a condition of receiving a bank loan, to reapply for future matching funds and use that money as collateral against the loan under certain circumstances.
McCain's situation was further complicated when, as The Washington Post reported, he exceeded the $54 million spending limit for candidates who participate in the matching funds program. McCain's campaign and his lawyers insist he formally withdrew from the matching funds program and is no longer subject to its spending limits. However, the FEC, lacking a quorum, has not been able to make a final decision on McCain's status and whether or not he violated campaign finance rules.
from factcheck.org |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 10:35:32 PM · #716 |
I'll be voting for Nader.. And when he wins. I'm buying myself a Hummer!
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 22:36:09.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 11:48:55 PM · #717 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
But Obama isn't alone when it comes to campaign finance conundrums... |
That's been the pattern all along. For every accusation McCain tries to lob at Obama, he's been guilty of the exact same thing... or worse. McCain didn't stick to public finance limits during the primary, and then tried to switch to private funding but the FEC wouldn't let him out of it. He accuses Obama of socialism while he's voting to partly nationalize the banks and despite arguing in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy in the past. He plays the "inexperience" card and then chooses a running mate who literally doesn't even know what the Vice President does. He rails against earmarks despite having pushed a $2 billion aircraft carrier through congress as a lobbyist against the wishes of both the President and the Secretary of the Navy who were trying to control the budget. McCain tries to associate Obama with terrorists for having worked with someone who planted bombs decades ago, yet McCain actively supported the Contras while they were killing civilians and was complicit in banking scandals that affected regular Americans. He demands access to a tape of Obama having dinner with PLO sympathizer Khalidi, yet gave nearly half a million dollars to the Palestinian group that Khalidi co-founded. He derides Obama's star power, yet trumpets his war hero status at every turn. McCain claims that Obama will raise our taxes, yet his own plan calls for higher taxes than Obama's on all but the wealthiest people. He warns of wealth redistribution, yet offers a $300 billion plan for taxpayers to bail out millions of delinquent mortgage holders. Hello? The guy who campaigned on a platform of integrity in 2004 has shown nothing but deceit this time around. It's disgusting.
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 23:49:59. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 06:12:10 AM · #718 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
McCain claims that Obama will raise our taxes, yet his own plan calls for higher taxes than Obama's on all but the wealthiest people. |
The side by side comparison chart I saw a couple of days ago showed McCain's plan benefitted anyone/household making over 66,000/yr. Below 66K, Obama's was better. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 06:20:43 AM · #719 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
McCain claims that Obama will raise our taxes, yet his own plan calls for higher taxes than Obama's on all but the wealthiest people. |
The side by side comparison chart I saw a couple of days ago showed McCain's plan benefitted anyone/household making over 66,000/yr. Below 66K, Obama's was better. |
I don't know the source of your information, but the side by side scale I just looked at suggests otherwise. Check This out.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 06:38:14 AM · #720 |
Originally posted by Prash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
If Republicans had the money Obama has, the left would be charging them with "buying the election". |
So, how do you feel about McCain spending $86 million taxpayer dollars instead of soliciting voluntary, private contributions?
I'm pretty sure this is the first (Presidential election) year that Democrats have raised more campaign contributions than the Republicans. |
1. If my memory is correct, there is a voluntary box on your annual IRS forms that one can check to donate to that very fund. That is the purpose of it. The sole purpose of it as I understand it. Therfore, it seems like every candidate should be mandated to take it as the citizens donated it for that purpose - voluntarily. Certainly candidates who promise to take it. But this year the democrats are reeling in money so the rules this year are different. Just as Bill Clinton promised in his original campaign to NOT RAISE TAXES on the middle class, it took only 26 days into office for him to renig on that promise and justify it on the back of the furture generations argument. With our current deficit, there is no way Obama can keep his promise either. But he doesn't have to. |
Flash, man, you talked about standing up in a discussion. What else have most others and I been doing here? Just because you prove you are fighting this argument alone here doesnt make what you believe a universal truth, unless you back your statements with impartial FACTS and not prejudices.
Imagine.. if I started screaming here about something controversial (there are many such topics), I will be run down by many many who will argue against it logically... but I can be stubborn and stick to what I am saying without any facts or logic to back it all up... and then 3 days and a 100 posts later, I could claim that I have a thick skin and I have the courage to stand up and face the crowd. Now if I thought about it and argued with substance, I will find many who will sit back and listen to what I have to say. But if I just choose to prove that I am a rebel and dont care what others say and only what I say is right (again with no facts or credible sources - check 'Fox' off there), that would be called impulsive insanity.. not smartness.
There is a difference between standing up for a cause you believe in (and know why you do), and just armoring yourself and screaming in front of a crowd almost telling them they are all ignorant and crazy. The latter is called stupidity.. no matter how nicely you wrap it in school-book English.
You certainly are a smart guy when it comes to Hummers for example.. and this is no satire, I mean it. But you fail when it comes to facing a knowledgible and informed opponent with logic. You remind me of a friend who would always just run out and shoot randomly at others in a video game.. ignoring the suroundings...with no logic whatsoever. His argument was: it shows I am superior and can stand up and am not scared. That was just a game.. but you prove that in real life, my friend.
I am all for supporting the one who thinks different from the crowd.. as long as it makes sense. Unfortunately you have not been able to convince a single soul on this forum over the years into believing what you believe. How do you explain that? Perhaps you lacked the facts.. or the examples that are convincing. Or perhaps you call everyone here idiot... just like your comments about the Obama-supporting-crowd?
I call upon you now. YOU stand up first with facts and answer those who bring facts too, not because you owe it, but because thats the logical way of having others respect what you believe in. A single slingshot aimed correctly is better than a randomly blurted weapon.
Can you stand up now? And respond to the facts rather than ignoring them? We can go over them one by one.
Do you want to start, my stand-up-guy?
ET: Spell check. |
1. I am not convinced that such a thing as "impartial facts" exist - at least from the standpoint that we both agree that they are impartial. For example, a recent poll done on the networks coverage of the 2 major candidates found that MSNBC had 73% negative stories about McCain while only 14% for Obama. FOX had 40% negative stories about McCain and 40% negative about Obama. To me, FOX demonstrates unbias - at least fair and balanced. I watch Olberman or Maddow and consistently hear snide derogatory comments about McCain and/or Palin while O'Reily consistently defends Obama's positions when guests (Morris/Rove) attempt to mischaracterize them. Again to me, that demonstrates a fair approach. These are facts. But I can't use these facts here with you as for you they are biased. I feel I've used facts all along. You discount the source. In other threads where I've given multiple sources (even ones with conflicting conclusions specifically to try and illustrate the unbiased nature of my conclusion and point) I was riduculed for having conflicting source positions. It is a no win here. The rules keep changing. I don't feel the BBC, NPR, CNN, ABC, CBS are impartial sources. They may be on some issues, but not this election.
2. If you have a list of truly impartial sources (and FactCheck.org is not one of them), I will gladly assess it and see if we cannot have a reasonable discussion.
3. Last night Maddow interviewed Obama and Obama's positions was very illuminating. I agree he has run a very good, tight lipped, disciplined campaign. He was very candid in saying that his speeches are aimed at the moderate Republicans, as he realizes that he cannot govern without their support. It is his contention that any warfare classifying Democrats vs Republicans is a loser. He specifically is trying to reach out to the gun owning republicans, the Hummer owners, those that might not ordinarily see themselves as voting for a Democrat. That is the stark difference between his campaign and the one ran by Hillary and more specifically why we have not seen the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's on TV. They would have caused a divide, one which Obama is carefully avoiding. The question is, where will he be on November 5th. Will he maintain this centrist position or will he return to his roots of the activist?
I am more than willing to Stand up and have responsible discussions, but it requires more than one side to come to the table and respect the arguments of the other. Bashing FOX news as unreliable when clearly they are not, won't move us forward. Even Obama knows he needs FOX news' audience. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 06:40:53 AM · #721 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
McCain claims that Obama will raise our taxes, yet his own plan calls for higher taxes than Obama's on all but the wealthiest people. |
The side by side comparison chart I saw a couple of days ago showed McCain's plan benefitted anyone/household making over 66,000/yr. Below 66K, Obama's was better. |
I don't know the source of your information, but the side by side scale I just looked at suggests otherwise. Check This out.
Ray |
I've seen that before and if I could find mine again I certainly would post a link. It was part of an article (likely CNN or FOX) that had a factcheck portion to it - so I suspect it was CNN. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:02:33 AM · #722 |
Originally posted by Flash:
2. If you have a list of truly impartial sources (and FactCheck.org is not one of them), I will gladly assess it and see if we cannot have a reasonable discussion. |
Curious. Why is FactCheck.org not impartial? Can you back that up? |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:17:29 AM · #723 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Flash:
2. If you have a list of truly impartial sources (and FactCheck.org is not one of them), I will gladly assess it and see if we cannot have a reasonable discussion. |
Curious. Why is FactCheck.org not impartial? Can you back that up? |
Because they don't agree with Rupert Murdoch. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:30:45 AM · #724 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
McCain claims that Obama will raise our taxes, yet his own plan calls for higher taxes than Obama's on all but the wealthiest people. |
The side by side comparison chart I saw a couple of days ago showed McCain's plan benefitted anyone/household making over 66,000/yr. Below 66K, Obama's was better. |
I don't know the source of your information, but the side by side scale I just looked at suggests otherwise. Check This out.
Ray |
I think I found it, it was a CNN article. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:36:15 AM · #725 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Reads to me that your vehicle couldn't do squat until you modified it. My point exactly. |
Which one?
The Blazer? My trucks? The Subarus? The Carerra 4s I worked on? The Audis? The Subarus?
If you mean the Jeep.....once again, you don't know what you're talking about. The bone stock CJ-5 in '62 was the only thing around, and it was a utility vehicle, a workhorse, not some ridiculous excuse compromise vehicle like your H3.
I wanted to do something different and I wanted a frivolous but enormously capable variation on the theme. Perhaps I should explain that all of the 4WD mechanisms like the gear drive transfer case, the axles, the suspension, the diffs were all the original running gear that came as equipped with the four cylinder engine!
Yet the breakage was minimal and usually was as a result of something completely ludicrous that I asked of the machine.
Quadruple the horsepower and torque in your H3 and see what happens to the rest of the driveline.
Are you aware of the enormous difference in strength and reliability between a gear drive and a chain transfer case? Do you think there's a reason why you couldn't get a manual trans without the gear drive case? Would you know what a transfer case looked like if it fell on you? Ever had one apart, or fixed one?
Do you have ANY experience with the actual mechanics of the vehicles?
Ever heard the names New Process or DANA? Know where they come from? Their provenance?
Know where the Power Wagon originated? Know what a Nissan Patrol is? An FJ40?
How about a Jensen FF?
Oh, my Blazer also was a bone stocker......six cylinder, three speed, no back seat, vinyl & rubber interior......a utility vehicle. Both my Subies were bone stock.....the '98 Legacy GT five speed wagon was an awesome machine, one of the best vehicles I've ever owned. I learned a lot about the benefits of AWD in the context of a sport wagon from that car.
As usual, you're spouting off, and you're not even aware of it when someone hands you your hat.
|
|
