Pretty simple at it's core. The people are the wrong color.
Printable View
Pretty simple at it's core. The people are the wrong color.
And they speak the wrong language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cisco Kid
:rolleyes:
And just to compound things, they can't be deported!
I guess I don't understand the original question. Doesn't Occam's Razor apply? They shit on Puerto Rico because they don't like people who aren't white.
I'm seeing widespread criticism of the joke so maybe racism is the explanation. FWIW, I think there should be more legal immigration especially when to it comes to granting foreign students citizenship and when it comes to filling labor shortages. There's probably a racist element to the illegal immigration debate. But most, around 70-percent, of Americans support a more extensive pathway to legal citizenship. A similar percentage opposes illegal immigration.
So let's ignore the racist minority. Is it something along the lines of not enfranchising 3 million American citizens with statehood? Is that even on people's radar?
I was thinking more: what’s the political gain in thrashing PR? Does it just whip the base into even more of a froth, so “undecided racists” vote for tfg?
Thanks, that's the one I was thinking of.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
In case anyone was wondering, this is the article that I was trying to read (you will have to plug it into the link above to get beyond paywall). I do not practice criminal law or litigation of any type but stories like this fascinate me - in this case how a little known force of police pseudo-scientists across the country are formulating reasons to detain and test people suspected of driving high - and how such "science" is being challenged in court.
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/...-nonsense.html
The over/under on the number that even realize Puerto Ricans are full American citizens with passports is probably pretty low.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_pdx
Sure, most Rs/conservatives claim to support legal immigration as a general concept, but when you get into the actual specific forms of legal immigration we already have most do not support expanding those programs. Trump actively railed against every single one of them during his term and cut them back as aggressively as he possibly could.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXqnRMU1fTs
Then you also have psychos like Anne Coulter who are on record saying we should have a complete immigration moratorium indefinitely.
“The only possibility is to shut the entire thing down, complete immigration moratorium. No getting in on marriages, family reunification, the humanitarian cases, the refugee cases, those are absolutely the biggest frauds — for at least 10 years. Just shut it down, take some time to assimilate the people already here and build the fence. Then we ‘ll start from scratch and write the new rules.”
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...l-immigration/
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/a...tion-plan-wall
Oh for sure, Anne Coulter et al are having a moment. But most Americans repudiate both Trump's "invasion" rhetoric and fully permissive "open border" immigration. So there needs to be a policy that doesn't turn people against immigration in general
Police formulating reasons to detain and test people suspected of driving high seems similar to quite a few other techniques like drug sniffing dogs trained to alert on command by their handlersQuote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
Re: immigration, isn't our economy basically a Ponzi scheme that falls apart when the population starts declining? We should be grateful people still want to come here, just need to figure out the right process. My Indian colleague and his wife have four graduate degrees between them and they moved to Canada after trying and failing to get US green cards. We should be welcoming those immigrants in, not chasing them away
"You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American" - Ron RayGun, 1988
I gotta pair of jeans that I really like but there's a couple spots where my giant freaking balls have rubbed a little bit of a thin spot in the material. So I wanna patch it from the inside to reinforce the areas so they don't turn into holes. In the past I've used some leftover badge magic with a face fabric over it.
What's the best patch material for this application?
Velvet.
https://media.giphy.com/media/a0Lgc1JvbfS4o/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles
How did the US become a country that no longer believes in free and fair elections?
To be fair, it's a portion of the population that is easily manipulated and not very smart. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
Who’s looking forward to snow sliding activities?
Can’t start soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzworthy
When I learned to start a car (60s) you depressed the accelerator part way and turned the key. Now you have to have your foot on the brake before you turn the key or press the button. When did it change and why? I can't remember the first car I had with the new method.
Two of our vehicles need the clutch depressed to start. The third (Chevy auto) you just turn the key.
Those newfangled hybrids at work you can never tell when they are on or off. Not a fan.
Requiring the brake to be pressed is, I bring, universal with push button start but not with keyed ignitions. Neither my 2017 F-150 nor the 2022-present Transits I drive for work require the brake depressed when you turn the key.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
I thought it might be a safety feature with pushbutton ignition, to keep small children from being able to start the car (at least until they can stand on the brake while pushing the button).
Seems logical to keep the car from lurching forward or backward. Make the default a point of safety.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Electronics dood.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
The new electronic transmissions in late 70's began requiring brake hold down. Signaled other parts to engage, i.e. starter motor.
Your 60's car had a carburetor that was fed mechanically so you were priming it. Newer electronic fuel injection, etc. would flood from that action.
That's the intent of a clutch safety switch. I've never met an automatic that you could fire the ignition outside of park (auto stop start excluded)Quote:
Originally Posted by jm2e
Given that an auto can't start outside of park, it seems more likely that requiring foot on the brake is to keep said foot off the gas and flooding the engine, rather than as a safety feature. I still sometimes try to start with my foot on the gas, out of old old habit.
So the last car of mine that started the old way was probably the 73 Pinto, and not the 81 Toyota 4x4 PU. If I want to know for sure I could email Mona Lisa Gambini, nee Vito.
It’s a safety feature so you don’t start the car with your foot accidentally on the gas instead of the brake and run over little Timmy.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The gas pedal hasn't been connected to the throttle for at least the last 10 years. The pedal only tells the computer what you want, the computer decides how much fuel and air the engine gets to accomplish that. You couldn't flood a modern car if you tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Clutch? What's a clutch? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BCMtnHound
So what you're saying is--if you can't run over Timmy with the car in Park and you can't flood the engine, there is no reason for your foot to be on the brake (or the gas). It would be a good idea if you couldn't shift out of park unless your foot is on the brake though. I can't remember if that is the case but I'll have to check next time I drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Touring_Sedan
A small purse.Quote:
Originally Posted by The AD
Why do phone numbers need punctuation? Why do so many sites require dashes or occasionally parentheses? What's wrong with spaces (like Europe) or just run all the numbers together. I'm sure there's a highly technical reason. Enlighten me.
Your foot on the brake tells the car you want the engine started when you push the button, otherwise you just get accessory power.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Apply brake to shift has been around for decades too especially after all of the Timmy's that got squashed by moms Caravan in the early 2000's
https://casetext.com/case/coker-v-da...20the%20world.
We had a manual 1988 Chevy Cavalier.
When my older brother was ~14, my dad asked him to go outside and start it to warm it up before driving to hockey. He started it and it jumped through the garage door.
So the brake to start thing became mandatory sometime after 1988, at least in Canada.
Why is Mane ‘n Tail shampoo popular?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Horses are sexy. Duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by jm2e
I had a similar experience with my stepdad’s manual ‘76 Peugeot 504. Went to start it at about 14 or so and it jumped into my mom’s Astro van. No real harm, just beaters in that driveway, but the brake to start thing never made me scratch my head neither. First time I saw it in a car I said “oh yeah that makes sense.”Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
The brake to start is an auto tranny thing, most manuals have gone to the clutch has to be pushed in. IMO that sort of sucks, I've had problems like the throwout bearing going out and having to start cars in gear. I dunno, maybe now that I'm (supposedly) a grown up I'd call for a tow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
Shit, you’re right. I guess in the six years since we’ve owned a manual I’ve forgotten everything about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
I've had that problem, too--led to careful rev matching all the way up the freeway to the shop, followed by electric power as the engine thought it over after stopping for a light. It's been decades now, but it feels like the switch on the pedal was fine with it. Maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
Anyway backing over Timmy isn't all that bad. I had an 18m old boy whose dad back completely over him with a rear tire--tread marks across his middle. His only injury was an infection where I did a quick cutdown to put an IV in his saphenous vein at his ankle. Embarrassing for me. Very embarrassing for dad.
My ‘03 Tacoma has a button that allows starting without the clutch depressed (can start in gear if desired). “The switch allows the vehicle to be drive out of difficult situations by cranking the engine with the clutch engaged.” Never used it for that. Hearing about the issues with the throw bearing, that also makes sense, but also outside my experience.
Many automatic transmissions you can start in either P or N- Neutral position. Every one that I can remember driving at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum