| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
 | ||
| Zenbiker |
http://dauckster.posterous.com/a-31-year-old-video -clip-absolutely-worth-you | ||
| Psykick_machanik |
Did someone say the ows is OPEN MINDED?!?!?!? That's funny, really funny. How the F@&K can they be concisered open minded when they are violently and staunchly operating from a single viewpoint. If they wanted to be open minded they would find a effective way to work inside our system of government in a productive manner. Not like a bunch of "dirty hippies". (there was NO way I could pass up using that line) And YES our system is messed up but it's still the best around. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Our system is messed up mostly because of the Federal government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. | ||
| Kenm123t |
THe Government has listened to too many maggot lice and flea ridden hippies in the past Letting them work in the system brought you Bill Ayers The Clintonistas Van Jones etc Progressives need to be sent to Europe to serve FRAU MERKEL she can handle them LOLL | ||
| Court |
Works well for Congress ....... 249 millionaires since joining. Not bad on a $174,000 salary. You're paying the bill. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Toot toot, look out! here comes the gravy train. ALL ABOOAARRDD | ||
| Sifo |
http://dauckster.posterous.com/a-31-year-old-video -clip-absolutely-worth-you Nice video Zenbiker. And some people question the idea that history repeats itself.  | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Here's the same clip on youtube. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
LOVE this one too: | ||
| Bluzm2 |
Is that really MM? If so, he started is fact twisting early on. At the beginning he stated that Ford knew that ANY rear collision would cause a fire. B as in B... S as in S.. If that were the case I wouldn't be here. I was rearended while stopped in traffic, the other cars was going about 30. Almost totaled my Pinto. No fire though... According to a quick internet search, only 27 people TOTAL died from a crash caused Pinto fire. So the 200 per year that doofus is using is totally wrong. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto 12.htm That said, it was a bonehead move on Fords part.... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Like he said, you didn't buy a Pinto because it was 'safe' you bought on price, economy, and maybe size (certainly not performance, hardly style) you could have bought the Lincoln/Buick/Plymouth Landyacht  Much Safer. Much more expensive to buy, own, operate - but a tank. .... And they are still on the road in this town. and I do wonder if it was like the saddle tanks on the GM that 60 minutes used pyrotechniques to make go boom, or the nimrods that are attempting 35 mph J turns in Jeep Wranglers and suffering Roll over fatalities ...... Remember - socialist motors will not elevate everything to Cadillac - it will reduce everything to Yugo. | ||
| Blake |
It was a design deficiency that posed a risk, and it was covered up by Ford. That, the coverup was the outrage. If Ford had been honest about it and allowed folks to make the choice on their own, then no problem, but they chose to try to cover up the risk. I agree, the 200/yr death rate and the assertion that any rear end collision would result in fire were lies. Michael Moore is a liar right to his core being. | ||
| Buellboiler |
The landmark case was in Evansville when a full size Ford Van driving at 80 mph by a drunk driver rear ended a stationary Pinto waiting to turn left. Even a Sherman would have burst into flames with that type of impact. So Blake exactly how are automakers to allow you the choice you speak of? Are you going to wade through thousands of pages of engineering studies to make your car purchase? | ||
| Just_ziptab |
"Unsafe at any speed"......it's not Corvairs,it's anything. Still loving my Pinto for 30 years....  | ||
| Sifo |
A friend just sold a '74 Pinto wagon this summer for $6,500! It was close to factory condition with less than 10K on the clock though. One thing I never understood about the Pinto bomb thing. The Mustang II was the same chassis with 2 inches added in the middle of the car. I could never understand how they didn't have the same problem with the Mustang II??? | ||
| Just_ziptab |
Look under the ass of a Vega..........nothing there but sheet metal with coil springs. Pinto/Mustang......box sheet metal frame and leaf springs. Go figure the bomb. | ||
| Kenm123t |
The pintos that burned didnt explode the gas tank ruptured when the back of the car was crushed into the rear axle and spring hangers. If you look at the so called exploded pintos the passengers were crushed into the dash . Uncontained gasoline is a low velocity explosion more of a flash fire. The same design was used on the Fairlane Falcon and Mustangs the major difference was the depth the of the trunks and the battering ram bumpers that sheared the tanks open against the rear axle. GMs issue with the saddle tanks outside the frame rails was caused by removing the fuel tanks from behind the seat in the cabs. Filler hoses leaked fumes and fuel in the cabs. So the big three moved the tanks out of the cabs Ford had room in between the frame rails. Dodge I dont remember when they changed or to what design. In both cases fuel tanks were crushed due to impacts by other vehicles. Not fuel tank explosions. | ||
| Aesquire |
Remember the old curse? May you be stuck in traffic with a Pinto in front of you and an Audi 5000 behind. Actually Pintos were bought with style in mind. If you have x$ to spend, you were looking at a Vega, Pinto, Gremlin, Etc. Pintos were stubby, but so were Rabbits. Looking back at car styles... Pintos sure weren't the worst. First car buyers, young couples, they can't afford a Caddy or a new family truckster. So the economics forced you into a class of car anyway. And! with the advances in safety the US car companies go through, even a cheap new car is in some ways safer than an old tank. ( mass is mass, true. A '67 PowerWagon is better in a head on collision than a '11 Miata, if they hit each other. The proverbial wall? Pick the car with airbags don't you think? ) Heck I'm a big Corvair fan. I think they looked best right near the end. They fixed the real issue, the Independent rear suspension, and by 65 the Monza was a good looking car, went over snow beautifully, and it's only problem was the passenger heat. Which, on a 20 below day, was pretty much zip.... unless you had the gas heater, which in our case meant you couldn't make certain trips at night, since you wouldn't have the fuel to make it to the next station with the heat on. ( Kansas, Nebraska, The Dakotas are like that ) Winter range is still an major issue with electrics. There are costs for decisions. | ||
| Boltrider |
It appears Michael Moore has enjoyed the foods of his labor. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Rememeber the 68 supercharged Monzas fast Porsche tormentors. Family across the street at my old place had a Audi 5000 start up run through his den out the sliding glass doors and into the pool at 2am. They werent home guy that live next door heard it and called the leos When they pulled the car out of the pool no keys windows up door locked. 100k in damage to the house. washer and dryer were in the pool too what was left. What they could tell the car bounced around in the house for 10-15 min before hitting the pool. Looked like a kid with a D3 cat was loose in the house. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16- 2011/occupy-wall-street-divided When asked if he'll give his Ipad to the poor members of his new society...No. Why not? It's a personal possession. "I'm more against private property, not personal property" | ||
| Sifo |
Is that really MM? If so, he started is fact twisting early on. No that wasn't really Michael Moore. From the original posters comments on YouTube...
Still it's amazing how some people just can't fathom simple economic principles even when they are explained with real world examples. Funny though that if you add 300 pounds of fat to this kid he would probably look a lot like MM. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Kenm, Dodge took the tank out of the cab when the Sweptline series was replaced with the new range in '72. My last sweptline had the in cab tank removed & a separate tank installed inside a toolbox in the bed. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Komrade, you do not understand the requirements of the Revolution you support. Private property, and personal property are indeed the same thing. All assets belong to the state; anything you own, inherit, grow, create, manufacture or produce; whether tangible or intangible - belongs to the state. Intellectual property ? Nope - state asset. The clothes off your back - state asset - you will be issued a state approved wardrobe. The car... don't even kid yourself. Cell phone - who are you calling comrade ? They have no depth of understanding the consequences or history of what they are clamoring for. Not a f*cking clue. the ONE great caveat of shiny glimmer to a Communist state ?.... no lawyers. (the state is always right, and you have no recourse to say differently...and as all corporations are state owned - forget about suing a corporation) The history of Lawyers in Russia should be instructive for any dunderhead law HYP hop head promoting it.... pity they probably havent read it. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283075/prog ressivism-race-and-training-wheels-freedom-tiffany -jones-miller ...For the Founders, the individual — not the government — has the primary right to decide how he ought to live. Individuals then “institute” government to aid them in living in this self-governing manner. In order to put its citizens in the enjoyment of their freedom, or natural rights, government must restrict their decision-making in some measure, with a view both to punishing those who would infringe upon the rights of others and to regulating the innocent exercise of freedom as necessary to ensure society’s preservation. But the Founders also well understood that the reach of the public — the reach of the law — must be limited if individuals are to have room to make decisions about their own lives. Private decision-making was thus to be the rule, and public restraints the exception. For the progressives, in contrast, government’s obligation to promote the fullest possible growth of all trumps whatever right anyone might think he has to make decisions for himself — to exercise, that is, freedom in the Founders’ sense. Indeed, apart from the right to become free in the “positive” sense, the progressives repeatedly deny not only that individuals possess “so-called innate or ‘natural rights,’” as progressive political scientist W. W. Willoughby puts it, but also that the power of government is thus limited in principle. In considering the “attributes of the State,” Willoughby pointedly remarks, “that which first impresses one . . . is its possession of omnipotent rulership over all matters that arise between itself and the individuals of which it is composed.” To affirm the “omnipotent rulership” of the state is to affirm that government, not the individual, has the primary right to decide how the individual ought to act in every aspect of his or her life. It is to affirm, in other words, that all of the decisions previously reserved to individual control by virtue of the Founders’ natural-rights doctrine are now subject to public control in whatever measure government, as the agent of moral progress, deems necessary. “There is no limit to the right of the State,” Ely declares, “save its ability to do good.” Second, when freedom is redefined in “positive” terms, it is divorced not only from the content of rights in the Founders’ sense, but also from the idea that men, as men, possess the same or equal rights — apart, again, from the fundamental right to become free in the “positive” sense. Although the progressives were confident that humanity was treading a common path of development, they also believed that different races and classes were advancing at profoundly different rates. In view of this situation, treating the different races equally would only frustrate the advance of the most primitive ones. “For a long time in this country,” Ely writes, “we were inclined to regard men as substantially equal, and to suppose that all could live under the same economic and political institutions. It now becomes plain that this is a theory which works disaster, and is, indeed, cruel to those who are in the lower stages, resulting in their exploitation and degradation.” Just how thoroughly government would need to subordinate any particular race (or class) would depend, in part, upon how primitive its stage of development was perceived to be. For the progressives, in short, treating the races unequally was not only not unjust, but was, in fact, a very hallmark of the government’s commitment to moral progress. One must understand the enemy. It's not needed to agree with him, or even to sympathize. You must however know what he means when he says something. If you have not read "1984", a book written in 1948, then you lack a vital vocabulary. If you have never read the ANY of the "great progressive" ideas, then the lies fed you by the useful idiots may even seem reasonable. Hey, if depressing reading isn't your thing, ( and 1984 isn't a joyous book ) at least watch the cartoon "Animal Farm". Maybe you can learn something from the cute little animals. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Love that line liberals Moral progress LOLOL omg I could crack a rib Libprog demons ows are the most regressive people are in the planet! | ||
| Sifo |
Why doesn't this story surprise me at all. OWS leaders staying in $500 per night hotel rooms. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/wall_ street_cra_pad_s31YWPjPTt0TYuxLGnu7IK The last paragraph sums it up pretty well IMO. Can you say useful idiots?
| ||
| Sifo |
Some are starting to see realities... | ||
| Sifo |
The funny thing is that they made this out to be fashioned after the Arab Spring uprising in Tahrir Square. I wonder if they have the slightest clue what's going on over there lately. Their version of marshal law and clearing the protestors with the military. Of course if you point out that's where they are heading with OWS they will claim you to be a stupid alarmist that doesn't know what you're talking about. Learn from history folks. It's easier than reliving history. |
