Pedigreed Bulldog
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RowdyRebel last won the day on June 16

RowdyRebel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,753 Excellent

About RowdyRebel

  • Rank
    Certifiable Redneck Engineer
  • Birthday 02/12/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    If its got wheels or a skirt, I'm interested...

    ...but I probably can't afford it either.

Previous Fields

  • Make
  • Model
  • Year
  • Other Trucks
    2000 Kawasaki ZRX11001996 Ford F2501992 Ford Ranger1986 Ford Ranger1947 Ford 8N

Recent Profile Visitors

3,549 profile views
  1. With Takata in bankruptcy, I can see why the automakers are trying to avoid recalling more vehicles as the cost will not likely be paid for by Takata. I think the federal regulators ought to bear some responsibility, though, because if not for them do you really think this many vehicles would be equipped with the faulty bags? NONE of my vehicles have airbags, and one of the first things I'd do if I bought a vehicle that had 'em would be to disassemble the interior and remove them completely...and I've been saying that since air bags first became "standard" features. This whole recall BS only reinforces my position on the issue. The government ought to get out of the business of telling people what they HAVE to buy through the regulatory process controlling the manufacturers beyond saying "This ought to be an OPTION." If people want it, they can buy it...and if they DON'T want it, they shouldn't be forced to buy it just because they want something new. I guess it's probably a good thing that I like older stuff, and will build/modify ANYTHING I buy (new or old) to suit my needs, wants, and desires. Once my name is on the title, I couldn't care less what the government has to say about what features my vehicles should or shouldn't have installed.
  2. As a person with a 4 year degree in Forestry, I've studied the climate, changes in the climate throughout history, and the effects of those changes on the various ecosystems. I would say I'm probably more qualified than a bitter old retired liberal when it comes to environmental issues.
  3. Yup. Declaration of Independence is fake. So is contract law. I suppose even the tariffs imposed to protect northern industry while leaving Southern agriculture to fend for themselves in the world markets was also non-existent. Ditto for the subsidies given to build northern industries and the railroads...all make believe. ...and the climate on Mars is changing, too, following the same trends as the Earth's climate ( If mankind is causing Earth's climate to change, how are we altering the climate on a planet we haven't yet set foot on? The ONLY thing the two planets share is the Sun, which has been present for the entire history of the ever-changing climate. Same cannot be said for man. The Earth was once warm enough for dinosaurs to roam the planet. It cooled off and glaciers covered a great portion of it. Then things thawed out again. Throughout history, the climate has been changing...long before we were here, and it'll continue changing long after we're gone...mirroring what the climate on the other planets sharing our Sun is doing. NO credible source thinks mankind is solely responsible for this change. Political hacks, sure. "Scientists" that rely upon grants from those political hacks for their paychecks, absolutely. Both groups lack credibility on the issue, though, because the FACTS simply do not agree with their "consensus"...and they know it. It is why they alter data to cause their computer models to spit out the desired results. That is ALL the "climate change" believers models. Problem with computer models is when you put garbage in, you get garbage out.
  4. The SPLC that Teamster is so fond of has been the inspiration for 2 terroristic shootings in the DC area over the past 5 years. And "reputable" in who's opinion? Just because they spout the same BS as you WANT to believe doesn't make them "reputable", especially when they have their facts wrong. No different than "climate scientists" forming a "consensus" based upon forged information and fraudulent data. 30 years ago, they thought we'd be cooked off the face of the earth in 20 years...and we're supposed to believe they are credible? The left has a bad habit of altering facts to fit their agenda. And where contract law is concerned, in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other. There is no severability clause in the is an "all or nothing" deal. The Declaration of Independence is also pretty clear when it states that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government. That is exactly what was done.
  5. The SPLC is a hate group. Nothing but a bunch of bigots who want to sweep ACTUAL history under the rug in favor of their own revisionist version which paints anyone THEY don't happen to agree with in a bad light. Fact is, Lincoln's war had little to do with slavery or the abolishment of such until he realized the South might prevail if they attracted allies to aid in their fight for independence from the oppressive federal government...much the same way the Revolutionaries nearly 100 years earlier were aided in the fight for independence from the British. The proof is there IF you are willing to open your eyes. Read the historical documents from that era (as opposed to your revisionist "history" books written 100 years after the fact). Take notice that the CSA Constitution contains pretty much everything that the US Constitution said at the time...and then pay attention to the "extra" items included because those Southern states felt the need for those extra items to be included. I listed a few of them in my previous post (which i'm still scratching my head as to why they got "edited" out). Look at the tax policies in place at the time which benefited and protected northern industry while hanging Southern agriculture out to dry. I'll post this link again...a good read to get you started: Note to the admins: I posted a link, same as last time, which is perfectly legal. Other members regularly and often like to post entire news articles, violating copyright laws, and nothing is done about that. If Teamster is correct and you're truly worried about "liability", that's where your concern should lie, NOT with original content authored by the member with an external link or two thrown in to reinforce what he's saying. But back to my other points. If Lincoln really wanted to free the slaves, his Emancipation Proclamation would have freed the slaves he had the jurisdictional power to free. Instead, he made a point NOT to free those slaves (specifically naming certain jurisdictions where the slaves were NOT to be freed, because those areas were loyal to the Union and therefore under Lincoln's jurisdiction) and instead chose to focus only on the slaves of a nation he did not control. It was no different than (and had the same effect as) a US President telling the North Korean people they no longer have to live under a communist dictator. No jurisdiction in the matter. NOBODY is arguing that slavery was a good thing or that it shouldn't have been terminated. What IS taking place, however, is the defense of many great men who fought and died for their country. Most of the men who died wearing gray were not slave owners and had no interest in that small part of the lead-up to the war. Nobody is saying it didn't play ANY role, just that the role it DID play was miniscule by comparison to the real motivating factors behind the succession by the Southern states. To say the war was fought to free the slaves is an outright lie and shows the ignorance and lack of education of the person making such a claim.
  6. No, it was from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. And WTF happened to the rest of my post? Apparently somebody has a problem with history...
  7. If the North was fighting to end slavery, and the South fighting to keep it, explain why the FIRST Constitutional efforts to curb slavery appeared in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America on 3/11/1861...adopted a full month before Lincoln attacked at Ft. Sumter!
  8. And yet it STILL lacks credibility.
  9. If a source cannot be named, it cannot be considered "credible". The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to be confronted with the witnesses against you, and if that is what is required in the LEGAL courts, it ought to be the standard for the "court of public opinion" that the media is so fond of using. Don't waste my time with rumors. If you have proof, let's see it, and let's cross-examine these so-called sources and verify whether or not they know what they are talking about. If all you have are "unnamed sources" or "anonymous tips", well I've got ocean front property in Arizona that's for sale...
  10. And what evidence exists for collusion between Trump and Russia? NONE! Yes, he is a businessman, and as such he was on the butt-kissing side of the equation trying to please those with the power to approve or deny his business deals as he negotiated to get his properties developed. As President, roles would be flipped and those foreign leaders would not have the same power over Trump. Yes, after the election and prior to inauguration (during the transition), Trump and representatives on his behalf met with foreign leaders and ambassadors...same as what occurred during the Obama transition, W Bush transition, Clinton transition, Bush transition, Reagan transition, Carter transition, etc., etc., etc... Nothing newsworthy or shady about any of that. If Putin REALLY wanted to affect the outcome of the election, don't you think he would've done so in favor of the candidate who gave him 20% of the Uranium production within the US? The candidate Putin had been buying for DECADES? It's time to get off this whole Russia thing, as there is nothing to substantiate the claims made by democrats. If anything, it is the democrats who are guilty of the accusations they are slinging.
  11. Those 59 people made the choice to live there. They knew the age and construction of the building in which they chose to reside, as well as when it was renovated and what was done...and if not, it is because they chose not to look into it. The government shouldn't be in the business of dictating what a private individual may or may not do with their own property, or who they may or may not allow to rent a space from them. If a building doesn't have sprinklers, it is a choice the person choosing to live there can make, and if enough people say "no way am I going to live in a tinder box, especially without sprinklers", then the owner of the building can either deal with a vacant building or make the necessary changes to make it suitable for people to choose to live there. People need to take responsibility for their own well being, rather than rely upon the government to make decisions for them.
  12. Nobody is denying that the number of "uninsured" dropped. It did so because the vast majority of folks like to think of themselves as "law abiding", and to be law abiding, you must abide by the law. The law says "you must buy insurance", so they did. Whether or not they could afford to use that insurance is another story, though. High premiums plus outrageous deductibles make in unaffordable to seek the care the insurance was supposed to they don't seek care, or end up paying out of pocket anyway because they haven't met the deductible. A lot of good paying the astronomical premium does... So along comes Trump, and with that the promise that you no longer will be forced to purchase a product you really can't people gradually start saying "fine...the ROI on that purchase sucked anyway" and canceling their worthless policies...and the "unemployed" begins to tick back up. Doesn't matter, though, because the people who are dropping coverage couldn't afford to use it anyway. That's why nobody cares about your claims that Obamacare was a success because of the drop in uninsured during Obama's 2nd term (when the penalties started hitting people). It also proves what an utter failure the program is when it can't even sustain itself when participation is allegedly mandatory.
  13. A higher percentage have coverage because they were told they HAD to buy it or face a huge penalty from the IRS. People in general WANT to comply with the law. However, that insurance policy they bought isn't worth the paper it is printed on for most, because the premiums are 2-3 times as high, eating up such a sizable chunk of their monthly budget that they simply can't afford to pay the ridiculous deductibles which again are 3-5 times what they used to be. Bottom line, that insurance policy they are paying an arm and a leg for in order to comply with an unconstitutional mandate won't ever pay out for anything other than the most catastrophic of claims. If that's all you were going to be insured for, you could have bought a policy like that for next to nothing before Obama and the Democrats forced this crap through. So you're faced with a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" situation, where you self-insure and pay the penalty and get gouged on any medical bills you may accrue since ER's tend to bill 340% more to uninsured people...or pay through the nose for insurance every month and declare bankruptcy when the hospital bills show up. Bend over, 'cuz either way you lose thanks to Obamacare.
  14. Big difference between a handful of nut jobs being soundly repudiated by others on the right vs the nut jobs being praised, promoted, and rewarded by others on the left. Peruse any "main stream" news source and you'll find "unbiased" journalists spouting the same crap this shooter wrote...which is why they aren't going to dig too deep into this guy's motivations.
  15. "...especially the right..." Now I know you're full of it. Read this shooter's facebook posts and his various letters to the editor that he has submitted over the years. They repeat the exact same load of crap you can hear on CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/etc. You don't think he's an extremist because you have a warped view of what is normal based upon the load of crap the media wants you to believe is the "main stream". Hillary isn't a crook despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Trump needs to be locked up despite zero evidence of any criminal acts. What do you expect from news networks that allow Clinton's political hacks to masquerade as "non-partisan, non-biased" reporters? But hey, keep buying the load of crap they're selling. The fact of the matter is, you aren't even remotely close to a "moderate".