When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Obama 332.......Romney 206, I would call a 126 electoral vote advantage a landslide in today's presidential elections. As far as the House, and Senate elections......because of GOP gerrymandering in states where they control the government, they have effectively made it impossible for Dems to win many House seats in those states. Proof of this is the 2014 mid term elections. Even though more Americans voted for Dem's than Pub's in those House races.......the Dem's actually lost ten seats. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled against the GOP gerrymandering, and are forcing them to redraw the districts fairly. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...stricting.html As for the Senate, Dem's are famous for not showing up in mid term elections, especially when they hold the White House.....of course 2016 is not a mid term year. It's also a historical fact that the sitting president, whether he be a Dem or Pub, his party loses congressional seats in mid term elections.
The gerrymandered districts are drawn according to the constitution. Don't like it change the constitution. What is illegal is liberal judges dictating congressional districts to their opinion of "fairly". "Fairly" to libs is draw them how libs would even if they don't win elections. Rule by judges is tyranny. Don't forget we are not a democracy which is mob rule, we are a republic with checks and balances.
It took a turn from entertainment to dead seriousness yesterday with the death of Judge Scalia (RIP). I can't think of a worse thing that could have happened politically between now and the election. Depending on which side of the fence you're on with this pending EPA rule, Obama's order on immigration, EPA's order on power plants, mandatory dues for public sector unions, the 2nd amendment, etc - your world just took a devastating blow yesterday. Could well be that if you like working on old cars yourself, building cars, racing, and off-road events - we may have a dark future ahead for us.
That is unfortunate. There are very serious consequences regarding government and politics. I respect those that are well informed on issues and policies, and formulate opinions accordingly.
My main point is those that find fault in one party and not the other are not thinking for themselves. This great country is best when the interest of the middle-class is top priority. Today, we we are run by special interests, and the EPA is just one of the many. How do the minority special interest groups rule, they split the middle class.
God Bless America.....especially the middle-class.
We all saw the insanity of "Cash For Clunkers". Consider the mentality of the race car ban, and think of what a short step it would be to a MANDATORY buy-out of old cars which get less than 20 mph or which don't have the year 20xx emissions standards.
I believe with all my heart and mind that SOME of these environmental nut cases absolutely WOULD ban old Vettes if they were able to do so. We can't afford to sit back and wait as they gather momentum and continue getting the ignorants on board with their lunacy.
SO TRUE Railroadman. I was a dumb *** and followed Obama's Cash for Clunkers policy thinking this would truly jump start minimizing the daily driver polluting cars/trucks. Boy, was I suckered on that one.
Sure wish I could 'turn the clock back' on my decision to crush rhis beauty:
5 speed manual, 302 ci loaded...just a sweet truck.
Just clarify, it appears above that this is my posting. I can assure you, it is not................
[QUOTE=65 vette dude;1591538383]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeM View Post
Obama 332.......Romney 206, I would call a 126 electoral vote advantage a landslide in today's presidential elections. As far as the House, and Senate elections......because of GOP gerrymandering in states where they control the government, they have effectively made it impossible for Dems to win many House seats in those states. Proof of this is the 2014 mid term elections. Even though more Americans voted for Dem's than Pub's in those House races.......the Dem's actually lost ten seats. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled against the GOP gerrymandering, and are forcing them to redraw the districts fairly. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...stricting.html As for the Senate, Dem's are famous for not showing up in mid term elections, especially when they hold the White House.....of course 2016 is not a mid term year. It's also a historical fact that the sitting president, whether he be a Dem or Pub, his party loses congressional seats in mid term elections.
The gerrymandered districts are drawn according to the constitution. Don't like it change the constitution. What is illegal is liberal judges dictating congressional districts to their opinion of "fairly". "Fairly" to libs is draw them how libs would even if they don't win elections. Rule by judges is tyranny. Don't forget we are not a democracy which is mob rule, we are a republic with checks and balances.
The gerrymandered districts are drawn according to the constitution. Don't like it change the constitution. What is illegal is liberal judges dictating congressional districts to their opinion of "fairly". "Fairly" to libs is draw them how libs would even if they don't win elections. Rule by judges is tyranny. Don't forget we are not a democracy which is mob rule, we are a republic with checks and balances.
The Constitution basically says, "One man, one vote." That is hardly the case with districts like below.
You cram 90% if the voters of one party into one district which than sets up 3 other districts that are 55% controlled by the other party. That's not constitutional.
And imagine, that with an administration and Supreme Court that decides that random checkpoints on highways to search and inspect motor vehicles for non-original parts is for the benefit of the public health, and is constitutional because, after all, the founders didn't envision motor vehicles when the wrote the document and possible polluting cars is as bad as drunk driving.
EPA opened the doors for that when they decided CO2 was pollutant.
Doug
Originally Posted by Plasticman
EPA Proposed Regulation Has Consequences for the Performance Industry
■Engine News
by Engine Builder Staff - Feb 12, 2016
Under the EPA proposed regulation, certified motor vehicles and engines and their emission control devices must remain in their certified configuration even if they are used solely for competition. Violators would be subject to the fines and penalties included in the tampering prohibitions.
Yes, the loss of the conservative Supreme Court justice who actually thought the job of that body was to uphold the constitution and not render rulings "de jour' based on the winds of political correctness blowing at a particular time is really, really bad news.
I sincerely cannot imagine in my wildest dreams the America that my grand daughter will live in as an adult...
You cram 90% if the voters of one party into one district which than sets up 3 other districts that are 55% controlled by the other party. That's not constitutional.
Dems did the same when they controlled congress. However Dems are sore losers. I'll stop if you stop.
What is unconstitutional is the several states all run by democrats that have passed laws to re-district that is not done by politicians as the constitution clearly states. Oh, sorry Dems don't care about the constitution unless it supports their devious deeds.
St. Jude Donor '09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-‘19-'20-'21-'22-'23-'24
Ditch the Electoral College and go by popular vote.
I still don't buy the entire concept that we NEED to do something. Weather and climate go in cycle, there are aberrations, and so what if we have more tornadoes or fewer hurricane. It will even out over time. The media often say "Scientists agree that...." but they DON'T agree.
Before they go trying to control our every turn of the screwdriver under the hood, how about some actual proof that there is a need. Not some chicken-little wack-job professor but some real data that shows we need to stop racing. It's total !
I've been in the technology business 45 years now.
There is simply nothing, technology-wise, preventing this...
But, no, we are stuck in the stone age with committees evaluating "hanging chads"...
With control of the senate I dont believe anyone nominated for the supreme court by Obama can get green lighted before the election in Nov. Remember how they tortured Clarence Thomas? Robert Bork? Might be payback time.
Yes, there was a time when this dinky planet we call home was once much warmer. However, there was probably only a few million of our ancestors (if that) instead of the 7+ TRILLION there are now.
You're off by about 6.93 Trillion
World population is 7 + Billion
Here is an example of how much a trillion actually is. You spend $34,400.00 EVERY DAY!
A Million will not last a full month
A Billion will last more then 80 years
A Trillion will last over 800 years!
That's 8 centuries!
Now consider our national debt approaching 20 Trillion!
LP
You're off by about 6.93 Trillion
World population is 7 + Billion
Here is an example of how much a trillion actually is. You spend $34,400.00 EVERY DAY!
A Million will not last a full month
A Billion will last more then 80 years
A Trillion will last over 800 years!
That's 8 centuries!
Now consider our national debt approaching 20 Trillion!
LP
You are right------------my bad.
However, here is the change in world population in graph form:
Hmm, interesting as how "I" am always the ones who is demanded to give something up because of other peoples lack of self control. Guns, cars, carbon emissions....
Hmm, interesting as how "I" am always the ones who is demanded to give something up because of other peoples lack of self control. Guns, cars, carbon emissions....
Doug
Yeah - and there are 110 million in the US on some form of means-tested Gov't support (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, ect) and only 102 million of us working to support them in their idle, dependent, listless, irresponsible lifestyle. You would think as much as they demand of us, they would at least leave our blasted hobby alone to get what enjoyment out of it that we can. Otherwise I may just give up supporting my 1.1 welfare recipients in the manner of which they have become accustomed.
Edit - oops. Should not have included unemployment in there - it's not classified as means tested. Actually make the figures worse.
Last edited by DansYellow66; 02-16-2016 at 07:40 PM.
St. Jude Donor '09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-‘19-'20-'21-'22-'23-'24
Originally Posted by DansYellow66
Yeah - and there are 110 million in the US on some form of means-tested Gov't support (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, ect) and only 102 million of us working to support them in their idle, dependent, listless, irresponsible lifestyle. You would think as much as they demand of us, they would at least leave our blasted hobby alone to get what enjoyment out of it that we can. Otherwise I may just give up supporting my 1.1 welfare recipients in the manner of which they have become accustomed.
02-14-2016, 09:35 AM
!
