8 8
Phil1111

President Biden, critics corner

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

For the record, I have no interest in the US shredding their constitution, it is the interpretation of some of the amendments I don't agree with. I am a huge fan of the third amendment.

You should know that many in the Canadian "freedom convoy" kept talking about their first amendment rights.

In Canada  the English Bill of Rights of 1689 remains in statute.  The English  Bill of Rights was the model for the Virginia Bill of Rights, which in turn led to the US Bill of Rights (1789) and the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

So you can all thank the English for your basic rights, going back to Magna Carta (1215)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
54 minutes ago, kallend said:

So you can all thank the English for your basic rights, going back to Magna Carta (1215)

And the English can thank the U.S. for their continued ability to enjoy  those rights.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

And the English can thank the U.S. for their continued ability to enjoy  those rights.

Or the Japanese, cause without them the US would have happily continued making money off the Nazis while the holocaust took place.

(yes both are stupid takes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Or the Japanese, cause without them the US would have happily continued making money off the Nazis while the holocaust took place.

(yes both are stupid takes)

Apparently brenthutch (whose posts I do not see except when quoted) has yet again demonstrated his ignorance of history.  The USA was conspicuous by its absence in 1940**, the ONLY time the UK was in danger of defeat.  And once Hitler turned on the USSR in June 1941 (also while the USA was in absentia) there was no more doubt of the outcome.

**The five US pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain were subject to prosecution if they returned to the US, for violating neutrality laws.  Ambassador Joseph Kennedy urged Roosevelt to stop supporting Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kallend said:

Apparently brenthutch (whose posts I do not see except when quoted) has yet again demonstrated his ignorance of history.  The USA was conspicuous by its absence in 1940**, the ONLY time the UK was in danger of defeat.  And once Hitler turned on the USSR in June 1941 (also while the USA was in absentia) there was no more doubt of the outcome.

**The five US pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain were subject to prosecution if they returned to the US, for violating neutrality laws.  Ambassador Joseph Kennedy urged Roosevelt to stop supporting Britain.

Obviously you have never heard of the lend lease program.  Here you go

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/lend-lease-act-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people just don't understand that teams need all of the members, and only rarely is a single member the entire reason the game was won or lost. It's kind of like imagining what your life would have been if you'd had different parents -- you'd be a different person.

Yes, we helped with lend-lease. But remove virtually any of the underpinnings of the Battle of Britain, and the results would be different. Not to mention that the German assault might be different in response to those changes. It's ludicrous to assert that England would be speaking German without the US having joined WW2. But satisfying, I guess, to people who need to depend on others' failure (or projected failure) for their own self-esteem.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

It's ludicrous to assert that England would be speaking German without the US having joined WW2. But satisfying, I guess, to people who need to depend on others' failure (or projected failure) for their own self-esteem.

Wendy P.

Who made that assertion?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Some people just don't understand that teams need all of the members, and only rarely is a single member the entire reason the game was won or lost. It's kind of like imagining what your life would have been if you'd had different parents -- you'd be a different person.

Yes, we helped with lend-lease. But remove virtually any of the underpinnings of the Battle of Britain, and the results would be different. Not to mention that the German assault might be different in response to those changes. It's ludicrous to assert that England would be speaking German without the US having joined WW2. But satisfying, I guess, to people who need to depend on others' failure (or projected failure) for their own self-esteem.

Wendy P.

Unfortunately some people learn history from John Wayne movies instead of from history books.

The Greek resistance in 1941 delayed Barbarossa by 5 weeks - enough to prevent the Wehrmacht from reaching Moscow before the onset of the Russian winter and no doubt changing the outcome of the war.  But you don't hear the Greeks crowing about how they saved the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kallend said:

Unfortunately some people learn history from John Wayne movies instead of from history books.

The Greek resistance in 1941 delayed Barbarossa by 5 weeks - enough to prevent the Wehrmacht from reaching Moscow before the onset of the Russian winter and no doubt changing the outcome of the war.  But you don't hear the Greeks crowing about how they saved the world.

Is yours the John Wayne movie version?  To be fair; not all historians agree with the account above; citing reports of late spring floods from heavy rains in eastern Poland and western Russia, delaying the planned start date to June 22, which is indeed when it started. The Greeks fought well and can take credit for slightly reducing the number of military units that the Wehrmacht had hoped to mobilise, but not for the pivotal delay that you infer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, billvon said:

The periodic changes unrelated to mileage are (I believe) to deal with water ingress.  Water gets into engines even if they are not being used; imperfect seals and valves (like the PCV valve) allow humid air to enter, and once it enters it can condense when temperature changes (i.e. at night.)

The primary source of water in the oil is combustion.

You should know this. HC (hydrocarbons - gas) + O2 = CO2 & H2O.

If the motor is run to full temp, the water gets boiled out of the oil and it's fine.
Lots of short trips, especially in colder weather, put a fair amount of water into the oil.
Ever pulled the dipstick or the fill cap and seen 'chocolate mousse'?
That's the condensation build up (or a major problem like a blown head gasket, but that has other, really obvious symptoms).

Running the car for at least 30 minutes (and driving it, not just letting it sit and idle) will get it up to temp and take care of the water.
That's why people who store cars over the winter shouldn't start the car up until they are ready to take it out on the road. 
Some folks think it should be started every couple of weeks and idled for a few minutes. That does more harm than good.

I've got a couple cars and a motorcycle.
The newer car runs synthetic oil. Published 10k mile interval. Since that car only sees about 5k miles per year, it gets changed every other year.
The other cars run conventional oil (dino or dinosaur oil). They generally get the oil changed in the fall, right before they get put away for winter. Same with the motorcycle. They may or may not see enough miles to reach 'change interval, but that's ok.

The oil (and filter) build up a decent amount of acids and other 'bad things' that I don't like to leave in the motor while it sits over winter. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The primary source of water in the oil is combustion.

You should know this. HC (hydrocarbons - gas) + O2 = CO2 & H2O.

Ya, sorry, I was speaking to the question "why should I change my oil if I seldom/never use the engine?"  That's the big issue for me since the ICE part of my engine is used very rarely.  As you mentioned if you are running it regularly, combustion products that get by the rings/valve seals are the main problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billvon said:

Ya, sorry, I was speaking to the question "why should I change my oil if I seldom/never use the engine?"  

The funny part of that is that an engine run 'seldom' needs oil changed more often than one run regularly, unless the 'seldom' is 'long runs that get it fully up to temperature'.

For a plug in Hybrid, where the engine doesn't run often and when it does run it doesn't run for very long (I think, anyway), the oil would need to be changed at far operatiing hours than any other application I can think of (changed on a time/calendar schedule, not miles).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ryoder said:

When I was in 8th grade, I needed to write a book report, and for some reason I chose The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Holy crap, that book goes into incredible detail. 

Was Gibbon's tome unavailable at your local lemonade stand? Sheesh. That sort of thing goes on your permanent record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The funny part of that is that an engine run 'seldom' needs oil changed more often than one run regularly, unless the 'seldom' is 'long runs that get it fully up to temperature'.

Right.

In my case, my current car is a PHEV with a ~30 mile range.  That's enough to get to work, the store, to pick up the kids, the tunnel etc.  To get to Perris (70 miles) I have to run the engine at highway speeds for an hour.

So I will go for several months with zero engine usage, then there will be a weekend where I run it for four hours.  Under those conditions, the engine just isn't degrading the oil that fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2022 at 2:09 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Tri,

Most Americans have not been raised to accept short-term pain for long-term gain.

'I've got to have it now.'

Jerry Baumchen

"Give me convenience or give me death!"

Jello Biafra

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-sells-alaska-back-to-russia-so-we-can-start-drilling-for-oil-there-again

“Folks, nobody wants to ruin America’s beautiful Alaskan wilderness with oil trucks and drilling rigs, come on!” said President Biden in response to questions he thought were coming from a house plant in the West Wing. “But I’ve never had a problem getting oil from Russia, so there you go, go get him.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It's not like he banned K-Y Jelly, Mr.concerned about Biden's behind. Reaching around to a more topical area of concern did you notice, in your excitement, how masterfully Biden played Putin in the lead up to the Russian invasion? Instead of constantly thinking that guys nuts you might have noticed that when everyone else was buying Putins legerdemain Biden consistently stated that the Russians were in fact going to attack. By doing so he denied Putin his own Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz pretense and coalesced international opinion against Putin at the get go. So, in that sense he most definitely took Putin from behind.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, kallend said:

I agree with you that not only is it a failure to increase domestic supply, it is a failure on the geopolitical front as well.  As usual the poor and working class are disproportionately impacted.

If Europe and Great Britain had developed their domestic supply of coal and oil and gas via fracking we would not be in this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/09/saudi-arabia-and-uae-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-amid-fears-of-oil-price-spike


 Biden won’t help increase domestic production, he can’t convince our “friends” to pump more, now he is reduced to begging dictatorships and terror states for oil we could easily be producing in North America.

#let’s go Brandon 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

 Biden won’t help increase domestic production

What happened to "the government shouldn't pick winners or losers?"  Does that only apply when you don't like what the government is picking?  Or have you moved more into the "socialist" category, and want the government to determine what industries do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

8 8