SCCAForums.com

Steve Hoelscher:

I remember trying to buy beer in Harrisburg, PA while attending a Pro Solo there back in the mid '90s.  Finding a beer store was a PITA, they had a poor selection, none of it was cold and you could only buy it by the case.  What a joke.

There's your problem.  You needed to find a bar, where you can buy a cold 6-pack and take it home with you.    I agree the beer selection in PA sucks.  They generally have the standard light beers and Lager (that's Yuengling for people not from PA) and that's about it.  I'm just happy that the stores around me in Delaware have started carrying some more exotic beer.

00R101:

Isn't "exotic beer" an oxymoron?

Haven't you heard that beer is the new wine? 

I prefer to drink things that you can also run an engine on...  everclear, 151, or basically anything overproof. 

SpyderVenom:

  

I prefer to drink things that you can also run an engine on...  everclear, 151, or basically anything overproof. 

Is that what happened to the piston in your avatar? 

florida is not the "east coast."  florida is the South.

the NE has so many people living so close together that it ends up w/ weird rules sometimes.  what works in Wyoming won't necessarily work in NJ or PA.  that said, the PA liquor rules drive me nuts, and the DMV is atrocious.  ever since NJ privatized the DMV, it's amazingly efficient.

Steve Hoelscher:

SpyderVenom:

  

I prefer to drink things that you can also run an engine on...  everclear, 151, or basically anything overproof. 

Is that what happened to the piston in your avatar? 

nah; i heard that one night Rob had a little too much of that 151, and thought the piston was a burger.

dmitrik4:

florida is not the "east coast."  florida is the South.

So that big wet thing I see out my living room window is NOT the Atlantic ocean?  Geez, I need to have another talk with my realtor.

Not to mention, you hear more New Jersey accents here than you do in Jersey.

dmitrik4:

the NE has so many people living so close together that it ends up w/ weird rules sometimes.  what works in Wyoming won't necessarily work in NJ or PA.  that said, the PA liquor rules drive me nuts, and the DMV is atrocious.  ever since NJ privatized the DMV, it's amazingly efficient.

Remember that when democrats talk about nationalizing health care, the oil industry, etc....

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

Remember that when democrats talk about nationalizing health care, the oil industry, etc....

Yeah.  Personally I'd rather stick with the republicans and invade more countries and watch our economy and world standing go further down the toilet.

"McCain.  No change because people are stupid."

Mark

Steve Hoelscher:

dmitrik4:

florida is not the "east coast."  florida is the South.

So that big wet thing I see out my living room window is NOT the Atlantic ocean?  Geez, I need to have another talk with my realtor.

Not to mention, you hear more New Jersey accents here than you do in Jersey.

 

i have no idea what the big wet thing is.  but if it growls and starts moving towards the house, run.    and there is no such thing as a Jersey accent.

FL is part of the eastern seaboard; can't argue there.

Steve Hoelscher:

dmitrik4:

the NE has so many people living so close together that it ends up w/ weird rules sometimes.  what works in Wyoming won't necessarily work in NJ or PA.  that said, the PA liquor rules drive me nuts, and the DMV is atrocious.  ever since NJ privatized the DMV, it's amazingly efficient.

Remember that when democrats talk about nationalizing health care, the oil industry, etc....

i didn't make a judgment about any policies; i simply stated what would seem to be fairly obvious.  policies and rules that are important or effective in one location don't always translate to another.  no one here cares about water rights, but it's a big deal out west.  does the fact that pennsylvania has no need for those rules somehow diminish their merit in California?

i actually haven't heard anything about "nationalizing" (in the correct sense of that word) anything.

marka:

Yeah.  Personally I'd rather stick with the republicans and invade more countries and watch our economy and world standing go further down the toilet.

"McCain.  No change because people are stupid."

Oh, so you prefer Marksism.  Well then you could just move to the Soviet Union.  Oh wait... there is no Soviet Union any more. 

The economy is not in recession by definition.  It is, by all current measures, growing.  Slowly, but it is growing.  And if you think McCain is the same as Bush, you are not paying attention.  

"A vote is like a gun.  In the hands of the ignorant, they are most likely to shoot themselves."

Steve Hoelscher:

And if you think McCain is the same as Bush, you are not paying attention.  

in all fairness, if you think a vote for a democrat is a vote for Marxism, the same charge of inattentiveness could be leveled against you.

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

And if you think McCain is the same as Bush, you are not paying attention.  

"A vote is like a gun.  In the hands of the ignorant, they are most likely to shoot themselves."

I agree that McCain is not the same as Bush (though he's a h*ll of a lot closer these days).  McCain isn't who I'm worried about, its all the other little f*ckheads under McCain that will remain in place, continuing their "excellent job", unless the Democrats take over the executive branch.

Interestingly, I completely agree with your quote.  The only downside is that all the folks that voted for Bush in the '04 election didn't die from the wound.

:-)

Mark

(btw, only a rabid conservative would equate voting for the Democratic party candidate with "wanting Marxism".  If you don't "want change" at this point, _you're_ the one who's not paying attention)

dmitrik4:

in all fairness, if you think a vote for a democrat is a vote for Marxism, the same charge of inattentiveness could be leveled against you.

Well, I have been paying VERY close attention.  Within the last 60 days, several democrat members of congress have stated on the floor, or in committee meetings, or in hearings before congress, that the Oil Companies and oil refineries should be Nationalized.  That oil companies "windfall profits" should be taxed away.

Both of the current Democrat candidates for the Democrat party nomination (O'Bama and Clinton) have planks in their platforms to Nationalize healthcare, to raise taxes on "the wealthy", to "capture the economies growth and invest it in doing the things we should do".  All are right out of Carl Marks' handbook.

I have been paying very close attention.  The US has never had a candidate for the US Presidency that were more obviously Marksist than these two.  Can you tell me a single major policy position that isn't Marksist in nature?

marka:

(btw, only a rabid conservative would equate voting for the Democratic party candidate with "wanting Marxism".  If you don't "want change" at this point, _you're_ the one who's not paying attention)

If the Democrat is running on a Marksist platform, then what would you call it?

You want change?  To what?   You want the government telling you what to drive, where and how much gas you can buy for it?  You want the government telling you what you at what temperutature you can set your thermostat?  You want the government dictating your health care instead of you and your doctor? 

Currently, there is no real leadership in the Republican Party.  As a result, it has been dragged to the left by the current power structure that lacks the will to fight the opposition.  Yes, I would like to see change.  I would like to see some principled leadership in the Republican Party, THAT would be change.

one of us is the Taka Aono of forum posting.  this will be my last one on this topic here. 

Steve Hoelscher:

dmitrik4:

in all fairness, if you think a vote for a democrat is a vote for Marxism, the same charge of inattentiveness could be leveled against you.

Well, I have been paying VERY close attention.  Within the last 60 days, several democrat members of congress have stated on the floor, or in committee meetings, or in hearings before congress, that the Oil Companies and oil refineries should be Nationalized.  That oil companies "windfall profits" should be taxed away.

Both of the current Democrat candidates for the Democrat party nomination (O'Bama and Clinton) have planks in their platforms to Nationalize healthcare, to raise taxes on "the wealthy", to "capture the economies growth and invest it in doing the things we should do".  All are right out of Carl Marks' handbook.

I have been paying very close attention.  The US has never had a candidate for the US Presidency that were more obviously Marksist than these two.  Can you tell me a single major policy position that isn't Marksist in nature?

i'm not playing that game b/c it's a guaranteed loser, and not on the merits.  major to me is likely not major to you.  and i suspect that what you consider "marxist" is far broader than what i do.

the man's name is Obama, not O'Bama.  forgive me if I question the closeness of your attention, and the sources to which that attention is being paid.

reading through Obama's policy positions, i see a plan to provide access to health care for those unable to obtain it through their employers, but i don't see anything about nationalizing (i.e., government takeover of existing property or business) of healthcare.  the health insurance companies will still exist.  and to be honest, it's shouldn't make a difference for those of us with healthcare, because we're currently paying for those people anyway, albeit in an extremely inefficient manner.  i'll be happy to see an emergency room used only by those with actual emergencies.  i'll be happy to see someone able to work herself out of poverty and off public assistance b/c she didn't lose her job when she needed to take care of a sick child.  taking care of those who need help is better for all of us in the long run, even if it causes some minor inconvenience in the short term.

and unnamed "democratic members of congress" aside, i see nothing that talks about a gov't takeover of oil companies.  i do support a withdrawal of any special tax breaks they might enjoy, however.  while the current situation might not be entirely their doing, i believe they are financially capable of paying the taxes they'd normally owe, and don't need to be propped up by the gov't.

Howdy,

Steve Hoelscher:

You want change?  To what?   You want the government telling you what to drive, where and how much gas you can buy for it?  You want the government telling you what you at what temperutature you can set your thermostat?  You want the government dictating your health care instead of you and your doctor? 

By and large, many of those things you could already argue are influenced by the government.  That's the _current_ government, the one you proud republicans have been so pleased with for the last eight years.

You're talking like there's some kinda big switch that's going to be thrown... I think that's a load of crap.

And yes, if my choice is between "no healthcare" and "healthcare run by the government" I'm going to pick the latter.  There are a number of countries that are doing it today, and successfully as well.

 

Currently, there is no real leadership in the Republican Party.  As a result, it has been dragged to the left by the current power structure that lacks the will to fight the opposition.  Yes, I would like to see change.  I would like to see some principled leadership in the Republican Party, THAT would be change.

Oh Steve, you are so full of ***.  The republican party doesn't have much leadership because a lot of the leadership has been discredited &/or put in jail.  And your current presidential nominee has been dragged to the left because most of the country has finally woken up from the "your taxes will be lower!" sleepy spell the republicans put on them and what's left of your party is realizing that he's about their only shot to win the whitehouse.

Your party has been "dragged to the left" because that path the far right chose was f*cked up enough that people actually noticed.  That's why the democrats are taking over the legislative branch and that's why I think they'll take over the executive branch as well.

And I'll tell you something else.... It takes a hell of a lot for me to want both the executive and legislative branches to be controlled by one party (either party...)  The fact that I fairly vehemnently support Obama in spite of that says something about how much I want the current f*ckwads out of power.

Honestly, if I could waive my magic wand I'd give the republicans back the senate/house and give the democrats the whitehouse, but that wasn't a choice.  The reason it wasn't a choice is because the republicans pissed off so many people with their myopic policies & "*** the world, we're going to do what we want!" ways that now the pendulum is swinging the other way.  Hopefully our government will have enough self restraint to ensure that we don't go to far the other way, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Mark

(I don't know if its "change I can believe in", but I sure as hell know that "it can't be any worse, and it just might be better")

Isn't this the "SOLO and All Autocross Discussions" subforum?

Scott

Marka said: blah,blah,blah political bullshit

Steve Hoelscher Said: blah,blag,blah political bullshit

You two jackasses fight over autocross stuff.  Why does either one of you think that a) any of us want to watch two jackasses play keyboard warrior or b) that any of this belongs here?

Quit shitting up a message forum the rest of us enjoy.  Go duke it out on some political forum....

DaveW