EE ( hats 0ctober

2012-10-11 13:34:30

#801

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6045|Catherine Black

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Finray wrote:
Jay wrote:

Younger drivers are going to get in accidents regardless of the size of the engine. You're telling me that a person driving a 2L turbo charged vs a 5L V8 is inherently less likely to get in an accident? Bullshit. If the kid is stupid and wants to race, he'll be prone to more accidents. A V6 pickup truck is not a racing vehicle. Why even try to make that logic fit the discussion?
5L V8 versus a 2L turbo? Probably not a lot of difference. 2L turbo is still a massive, overpowered engine for a first car.

5L V8 versus a 1.1L Fiesta? Yes.
What is this "First car" bullshit? Why should I settle for anything less than what I need? I'm not going to get a fucking old-ass run-down Saturn because I need a first car I "won't care about" or that I won't mind crashing because "everybody crashes their first car."

I'm a very good driver. It's been about a year and a half that I've been (legally) driving and the closest I've been to a car crash is 2 dumb bitches texting in their suburbans that didn't signal and decided to change lanes really quickly and the other made a left in front of me dangerously close.

There's no reason I shouldn't get a good car, that I can afford, right now and keep it for a long time. I don't need some shitty car to crash before I get "promoted" to something bigger and better because now I'm a better driver supposedly?

I'm ranting...

I'm not saying you buy a shit car as your first, I'm saying you don't buy a 3.5L car as your first. Get a hatchback. <2L engine. Good MPG. Good condition. Well maintained. If you buy something that's relatively new and high spec, versus something older and lower spec, it's not going to be any of those points.

Buy something that on the outside is a 'worse' car, but because it's not as good, it'll be in better condition, you won't have to maintain it as much, you won't end up crashing it because it won't do over 110 (and don't give me that "bleh bleh I never go fast" crap, all it takes is to go too fast for the conditions and you can be in some real trouble). Trust me, Shifty, I speak from experience.

2012-10-11 13:36:53

#802

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6924

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
when does the mandate take effect? It's a tax (as ruled by the Supreme Court), not a penalty. If you have insurance you don't have to pay the tax.

not sure if serious...

2012-10-11 13:42:32

#803

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6889|949

am i wrong?

2012-10-11 14:08:34

#804

west-phoenix-az: Guns don't kill people. . . joe bidens advice does; +632|6646

Finray wrote:
all it takes is to go too fast for the conditions and you can be in some real trouble). Trust me, Shifty, I speak from experience.

https://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123/west-phoenix-az/BF2S/bf2s_sig_9mmbrass.jpg

2012-10-11 14:10:21

#805

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6045|Catherine Black

I ain't even mad anymore, just hope shifty doesn't end up upside down in a ditch torn into three pieces because he did 140 along a highway in the rain

wait, what am I saying

shifty buy that truck

2012-10-11 14:11:56

#806

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6889|949

it won't matter what kind of car you're in if you're doing 140 down a highway in the rain

2012-10-11 14:14:51

#807

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6924

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
am i wrong?

Semantics. Tax or penalty.

From awhile back. Marriage tax or marriage penalty.

Current. Deductions for children. Penalized for not supporting minors.

2012-10-11 14:16:03

#808

cowami: OY, BITCHTITS!; +1,106|6547|Noo Yawk, Noo Yawk

being on the interwebs instead of learning flight control laws is totally awesome

2012-10-11 14:19:39

#809

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6889|949

Ilocano wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
am i wrong?
Semantics. Tax or penalty.

From awhile back. Marriage tax or marriage penalty.

Current. Deductions for children. Penalized for not supporting minors.

semantics, but important. That's a key argument in front of the supreme court - whether it can be construed as a tax, not a penalty. It's an important distinction.

2012-10-11 14:20:38

#810

west-phoenix-az: Guns don't kill people. . . joe bidens advice does; +632|6646

not sure if uzi really has to wait 30 minutes between posts

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q2bZHf6p8UE/Ta7GKW2PBTI/AAAAAAAABEE/tNOGjHKRN8w/s1600/hmm.jpg

2012-10-11 14:21:04

#811

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6889|949

cowami wrote:
being on the interwebs instead of learning flight control laws is totally awesome

i streamed the giants game at work. i asked the IT guy if I could stream something and he said, "I don't know what you're talking about." That's all the confirmation i needed

2012-10-11 14:23:14

#812

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5800|Toronto

west-phoenix-az wrote:
not sure if uzi really has to wait 30 minutes between posts

He does. We have already spoken via PM. He doesn't send so many PMs for no reason.

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2012-10-11 14:25:59

#813

west-phoenix-az: Guns don't kill people. . . joe bidens advice does; +632|6646

fwp

2012-10-11 14:26:29

#814

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6924

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Ilocano wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
am i wrong?
Semantics. Tax or penalty.

From awhile back. Marriage tax or marriage penalty.

Current. Deductions for children. Penalized for not supporting minors.
semantics, but important. That's a key argument in front of the supreme court - whether it can be construed as a tax, not a penalty. It's an important distinction.

A tax for non-participation? Odd really.

2012-10-11 14:29:13

#815

west-phoenix-az: Guns don't kill people. . . joe bidens advice does; +632|6646

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
cowami wrote:
being on the interwebs instead of learning flight control laws is totally awesome
i streamed the giants game at work. i asked the IT guy if I could stream something and he said, "I don't know what you're talking about." That's all the confirmation i needed

pour him a glass of that scotch

2012-10-11 14:53:13

#816

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6754

west-phoenix-az wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
cowami wrote:
being on the interwebs instead of learning flight control laws is totally awesome
i streamed the giants game at work. i asked the IT guy if I could stream something and he said, "I don't know what you're talking about." That's all the confirmation i needed
pour him a glass of that scotch

pour me . . . hey, i havena been bannt in awhile, hmmmmmmmmmm

2012-10-11 15:05:44