By Facism Go To PostYou can see why ataturk hated Islam.And it's pretty sad how many still follow that Erdogan cunt.
I wonder how it's going when the economy goes to shit, because that was always the main argument for alot of people.
T
They'll say Allah will keep them warm in winter when they can't afford heating.
By Pennywise Go To PostAnd it's pretty sad how many still follow that Erdogan cunt.
I wonder how it's going when the economy goes to shit, because that was always the main argument for alot of people.
They'll say Allah will keep them warm in winter when they can't afford heating.
I wonder how thanksgiving dinner will go down in the Goodlatte family
A senior Republican lawmaker's son has donated the maximum legal limit to the Democratic challenger running in an election to replace his father.
Virginia congressman Bob Goodlatte is not seeking re-election in November.
A senior Republican lawmaker's son has donated the maximum legal limit to the Democratic challenger running in an election to replace his father.
Virginia congressman Bob Goodlatte is not seeking re-election in November.
By Pennywise Go To PostAnd it's pretty sad how many still follow that Erdogan cunt.
I wonder how it's going when the economy goes to shit, because that was always the main argument for alot of people.
turkey's following the same path iran did, they'll just start blaming the west (who are not innocent either) for all of their problems and the uneducated religious fucks will eat it up.
Ay yeah sorry to hear about Turkey brehs. Hopefully y'all will know how to get along without money since that's just a social construct designed to put rich people (who should be guillotined) in power anyway.
But also, I just wanted to ask the Americans here, was "third way-ism" ever really "third way-ism" or just another bullshit punchline like "trickle down economics"? I need to know. Some historical background would be greatly appreciated, as well, but not entirely necessary.
But also, I just wanted to ask the Americans here, was "third way-ism" ever really "third way-ism" or just another bullshit punchline like "trickle down economics"? I need to know. Some historical background would be greatly appreciated, as well, but not entirely necessary.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostAy yeah sorry to hear about Turkey brehs. Hopefully y'all will know how to get along without money since that's just a social construct designed to put rich people (who should be guillotined) in power anyway.I just stop by this thread to read your posts my guy
By Fenderputty Go To PostMoney seems like a better system than bartering for services and goods.I rather trade in those secret poker chips they were using in John wick 2.
I never saw them have to spend any money in that movie.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostI rather trade in those secret poker chips they were using in John wick 2.fucking lol
I never saw them have to spend any money in that movie.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostI rather trade in those secret poker chips they were using in John wick 2.so you just want different looking money
I never saw them have to spend any money in that movie.
By RobNBanks Go To Postso you just want different looking money
Money backed by the inherent value of badassness.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostAy yeah sorry to hear about Turkey brehs. Hopefully y'all will know how to get along without money since that's just a social construct designed to put rich people (who should be guillotined) in power anyway.
Omarosa: 'I have' been interviewed by Mueller
Mueller is going to drop his shit the second the reds are ready to vote on the next SC appointment isn't he?
Imagine how trash a human being you must be, let alone (for all intents and purposes) Italy's not-so-shadow prime minister, to boast about having successfully denied a boat full of immigrants safe harbour on the day of the Genova tragedy.
Omarosa is infinitely prettier though. To the point, I think the N word is such an outward show of racism that is not easily denied. If his “there’s good people” comments in Charlottesville didn’t clue you in, I doubt his policy that affects the more abstract structural issues is gonna get noticed for what it is
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the Trump administration moves to freeze vehicle fuel efficiency standards, some regulatory officials have disputed the Transportation Department rationale that the plan would significantly cut traffic deaths, internal documents made public on Tuesday showed.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions/epa-staff-disputed-claim-fuel-efficiency-plan-would-save-lives-idUSKBN1KZ2CS
The Transportation Department under President Donald Trump has proposed rolling back Obama administration rules requiring tough fuel efficiency standards and backs freezing the standards at 2020 levels through 2026.
In a June 18 memo posted by the Environmental Protection Agency on a regulatory website on Tuesday, EPA staff said they believed the plan would increase traffic deaths by 17 a year from 2036 through 2045 because of an increase in vehicle travel, rather than reduce deaths by 150 per year over that time as the Transportation Department contended.
That whole EPA rationale for "reducing" deaths is just facepalm bad because basic math dictates they're wrong. E=MV^2 - larger vehicles have greater mass and therefore do more damage in a collision. Period. Larger crumple zones are nice, but most of the really big ones are ladder/box frame trucks anyhow.
But you know, it's Wednesday and our government is making mealy mouthed bad faith excuses for bad policy, just like they do on the other 6 days of the week.
But you know, it's Wednesday and our government is making mealy mouthed bad faith excuses for bad policy, just like they do on the other 6 days of the week.
By n8 dogg Go To PostDat Great Purge test run
At least two or three of these people didn't have clearances to revoke. It's #teampetty^10
I'm not even 5 min in, loving this by the way, and maybe they get to it but the whole time I'm just thinking 'who the fuck are they doin' this (Brexit shit) for?'
Really not looking forward to the commies running the UK government for the next decade. Brilliant podcast that.
So at the very least you guys are looking at customs hell for many a product and at worse a bunch of stuff not even leaving its country of origin port so food shortages, medical supply shortages, more power grid blackouts, etc?
yes
We are leaving for two reasons:
1) too many people in this country don’t like immigrants and thinks this will change the amount of brown people they see in the street
2) too many people in this country seem to think the word ‘brussels’ has become a synonym for boogeyman
We are leaving for two reasons:
1) too many people in this country don’t like immigrants and thinks this will change the amount of brown people they see in the street
2) too many people in this country seem to think the word ‘brussels’ has become a synonym for boogeyman
I mean stones glass houses and all that because lol Trump over here but you're a small Island, you need imports, what could you possibly do better than the relatively smooth EU trading system? But I guess there lies the rube, it's nonsensical stupid shit that appeals to people who still think y'all are some grand monarchy/empire that matters or whatever.
We are overwhelmingly lucky that USA speak our language otherwise we’d be the insignificant speck we deserve to be
By Christberg Go To PostThat whole EPA rationale for "reducing" deaths is just facepalm bad because basic math dictates they're wrong. E=MV^2 - larger vehicles have greater mass and therefore do more damage in a collision. Period. Larger crumple zones are nice, but most of the really big ones are ladder/box frame trucks anyhow.Why would you say its all basic math, say "period".. then introduce caveats?
But you know, it's Wednesday and our government is making mealy mouthed bad faith excuses for bad policy, just like they do on the other 6 days of the week.
By n8 dogg Go To PostWe are overwhelmingly lucky that USA speak our language otherwise we’d be the insignificant speck we deserve to beSeems to me a bunch of Brits/Americans are really being salty about how irrelevant they have/will become and have doubled down in the most myopic and stupid shit imaginable as a result. Even as someone who questions capitalism, borders, nations (mostly how they are divvied up) it seems extremely fucking dumb to me to ignore how much production, economy, BASIC SHIT TO LIVE is a result of and necessitates global trade. Whether it's a resource necessary for refinement, fucking food, medical supplies or to heat your fucking stove. Any system that would make this easier is a positive for all. We could get into the nitty gritty of how the system actually works and can and does unfairly exploit labor and all that sure but ideally at the end of the day, there are nations that need shit they can't grow or can't be sourced in their country and to extricate themselves from a system that attempts to make it simpler and forgo a lot of tariff bullshit, customs holding shit up and makes crap like heat treated nonliving palettes uniform so you don't even have to go to the tedious trouble of also inspecting the crap the products come in on, I'm just fucking blown away.
By diehard Go To PostWhy would you say its all basic math, say "period".. then introduce caveats?
Because the “caveats” are only useful if you’re the one getting hit, not the other way around, and that’s debatable. Vehicle safety is holistic and is just as much about damage to smaller vehicles, pedestrians and other property as it is about you in your own vehicle.
Saying larger vehicles are safer is patently false. Their argument is Republican 101 FU got mine and nothing else.
We won’t even get into how pushing the size of vehicles ever larger while screwing over public transportation constitutes a stealth poor tax.
By Christberg Go To PostBecause the “caveats” are only useful if you’re the one getting hit, not the other way around, and that’s debatable. Vehicle safety is holistic and is just as much about damage to smaller vehicles, pedestrians and other property as it is about you in your own vehicle.Larger vehicles can absolutely be safer. Larger crumple zones make a vehicle safer, regardless of what is on the opposite end (barrier tests).
Saying larger vehicles are safer is patently false. Their argument is Republican 101 FU got mine and nothing else.
We won’t even get into how pushing the size of vehicles ever larger while screwing over public transportation constitutes a stealth poor tax.
https://youtu.be/ExQUGk12S8U?t=43
Vehicle safety is complex and boiling it down to purely E=MV^2 is asinine.
That video you posted 100% proves my point, not sure what you're getting at. The OCCUPANT of the larger car is safer, not the person on the receiving end of the damage inflicted by the larger vehicle. You have to consider what's being hit, not just who's in the vehicle doing the hitting.
What happens when a pedestrian is hit in a smaller car vs a larger one?
What happens when property is damaged in a smaller car vs a larger one?
What happens when a larger car hits a smaller car?
How much time does it take to regain control of a vehicle in an emergency situation in a larger car vs a smaller one? Which one is more likely to roll over, especially given that larger cars typically have a much higher center of gravity?
It's complicated, but not THAT complicated. More weight = more inertia at any given speed.
Again, vehicle safety is as much about the object on the receiving end of the collision as it is about the passenger. And it's definitely complicated but you can't escape basic physics.
What happens when a pedestrian is hit in a smaller car vs a larger one?
What happens when property is damaged in a smaller car vs a larger one?
What happens when a larger car hits a smaller car?
How much time does it take to regain control of a vehicle in an emergency situation in a larger car vs a smaller one? Which one is more likely to roll over, especially given that larger cars typically have a much higher center of gravity?
It's complicated, but not THAT complicated. More weight = more inertia at any given speed.
Again, vehicle safety is as much about the object on the receiving end of the collision as it is about the passenger. And it's definitely complicated but you can't escape basic physics.
Larger vehicles do better in the IHS's barrier tests, aka crashing into an object that isn't another car. I linked to the part stating that.
"Bigger vehicles usually have longer front ends, with longer crush zones. The longer the crush the zone, the longer the vehicles crushes and the lower the forces on the occupants inside."
Larger vehicles crashing into larger vehicles will general do better than smaller vehicles crashing into small vehicles. You are also applying the physics to weight not size, there tends to be a correlation but again.. caveats.
Nobody is escaping basic physics in any of these analyses like you seem to think they are. If you want to make an argument about basic physics and vehicle safety, speed limit would be the go-to law.
"Bigger vehicles usually have longer front ends, with longer crush zones. The longer the crush the zone, the longer the vehicles crushes and the lower the forces on the occupants inside."
Larger vehicles crashing into larger vehicles will general do better than smaller vehicles crashing into small vehicles. You are also applying the physics to weight not size, there tends to be a correlation but again.. caveats.
Nobody is escaping basic physics in any of these analyses like you seem to think they are. If you want to make an argument about basic physics and vehicle safety, speed limit would be the go-to law.
I still don't understand why we should allow cars to become more fuel in-efficient, just to negate an increase of 17 deaths per year. There are other things that can be done in areas of traffic control and road safety to save many more than 17 lives, I'm sure.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sorry about those 17 additional lives that could potentially be lost every year. One of those lives could be mine, or someone related to me, or someone I know, etc. But I'm also very much concerned about saving the environment by reducing carbon emissions, which we know are causing smog and air pollution, and then trapping heat. I'm very much concerned about increasing energy independence, so we're no longer attaching our foreign policy to middle eastern hips all the time, and so we can stop partaking in bullshit wars over it. I'm very much concerned that for all the technology available to us, we'd rather help Exxon post more record profits again, instead of endorsing infrastructure projects that make all-electric vehicles more viable and feasible for all consumers.
So am I saying that the cost of 17 more lives in the first year would be worth all the other benefits? You bet I am, because first of all, why would we even trust the current EPA in the first place? This is an EPA that has been castrated and is just serving polluters and the oil industry now, instead of regulating them. So why would we trust anything coming from Trump's stooges employed by far-right special interests?
I mean, by the current administration's logic at the EPA, cars should only have 5 miles to the gallon then, cuz just think how much bigger vehicles can be and then how much more lives would be saved.
I think the better idea would just be to make sure there are safer drivers on the road who wouldn't be getting into any accidents anyway in the first place. Let's do that, let's focus on reducing the number of accidents. Then there wouldn't have to be this backward debate about sacrificing fuel efficiency on a worldwide scale just to save 17 random lives.
This EPA is a joke. It's like if the tobacco industry was the surgeon general now.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sorry about those 17 additional lives that could potentially be lost every year. One of those lives could be mine, or someone related to me, or someone I know, etc. But I'm also very much concerned about saving the environment by reducing carbon emissions, which we know are causing smog and air pollution, and then trapping heat. I'm very much concerned about increasing energy independence, so we're no longer attaching our foreign policy to middle eastern hips all the time, and so we can stop partaking in bullshit wars over it. I'm very much concerned that for all the technology available to us, we'd rather help Exxon post more record profits again, instead of endorsing infrastructure projects that make all-electric vehicles more viable and feasible for all consumers.
So am I saying that the cost of 17 more lives in the first year would be worth all the other benefits? You bet I am, because first of all, why would we even trust the current EPA in the first place? This is an EPA that has been castrated and is just serving polluters and the oil industry now, instead of regulating them. So why would we trust anything coming from Trump's stooges employed by far-right special interests?
I mean, by the current administration's logic at the EPA, cars should only have 5 miles to the gallon then, cuz just think how much bigger vehicles can be and then how much more lives would be saved.
I think the better idea would just be to make sure there are safer drivers on the road who wouldn't be getting into any accidents anyway in the first place. Let's do that, let's focus on reducing the number of accidents. Then there wouldn't have to be this backward debate about sacrificing fuel efficiency on a worldwide scale just to save 17 random lives.
This EPA is a joke. It's like if the tobacco industry was the surgeon general now.
Tyuis is great. Kellyanne tried to shit on her husband in this piece, thought it was off record, it wasn’t lol
By n8 dogg Go To Postyes
We are leaving for two reasons:
1) too many people in this country don’t like immigrants and thinks this will change the amount of brown people they see in the street
2) too many people in this country seem to think the word ‘brussels’ has become a synonym for boogeyman
You know, as bad as the UK is for racism, it is by far the tamest country in Europe when it comes to it. Rest of the continent forgot about WW2, the Cold War but are still getting cuckfeels over the Ottoman era.