[Lups]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Okay, I'll bite, what's the first?

Men who wear long underwear.

It's not liberalism that causes these things, it's USA's way of thinking finding it's way even to the civilized world. If everything is a lawsuit, soon everyone is only looking ways to finance their BMW's.

I do not approve Darwinism as a way to think, as in only the strong deserve to live, EU is starting to take lessons from the wrong place as how to make world safer.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Lups

Men who wear long underwear.

It's not liberalism that causes these things, it's USA's way of thinking finding it's way even to the civilized world. If everything is a lawsuit, soon everyone is only looking ways to finance their BMW's.

I do not approve Darwinism as a way to think, as in only the strong deserve to live, EU is starting to take lessons from the wrong place as how to make world safer.

It is totally liberalism. Liberalism in the USA interprets the words "All Men are created equal" to mean all men (and women, transsexuals/cross-genders, and homosexuals, and whatever other subclasses they breakdown the human genome into) "disserve" equal. But you are right, we're saturated with it so much here they are now exporting it; as in everything, it is governed by the Law of Entropy.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

It is totally liberalism. Liberalism in the USA interprets the words "All Men are created equal" to mean all men (and women, transsexuals/cross-genders, and homosexuals, and whatever other subclasses they breakdown the human genome into) "disserve" equal. But you are right, we're saturated with it so much here they are now exporting it; as in everything, it is governed by the Law of Entropy.

I've only been here since mid January, and equality is something I have not seen. I know I'm horribly spoiled coming from a place where the women also have a voice, that's why it was such a shock to me coming here and hearing all the time that someone wanted my husbands input in things. When it came to cars, it seriously pissed me of, he doesn't even drive, but I get to choose the color of the vehicle, I will hand out the money for. That conversation went down in a few dealerships, and let's just say, that they may have learned their lesson in pissing of a member of the "gentler" gender.

None of that had nothing to with liberalism, you may have the words in your constitution, and therefore most of you guys have heard about it, but if it doesn't go in your pocket in the form of a gun, reality is far from it.

Now, to the topic. It's funny that EU is using a shit load of time and money reducing sound waste (there must be a word for this, I just don't know it), and then the only, ONLY good thing about these hateful machines is that they do not disturb the nature with their sound, and that's going to be fixed. I which they would just go back to regulating tomato sizes as they used to do, and I have started to see crooked cucumbers at grocery stores ones again.

Still, as soon as I quit my day job, there will be a revolution and we will not have to fear for the pedestrians anymore.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Lups

I've only been here since mid January, and equality is something I have not seen. I know I'm horribly spoiled coming from a place where the women also have a voice, that's why it was such a shock to me coming here and hearing all the time that someone wanted my husbands input in things. When it came to cars, it seriously pissed me of, he doesn't even drive, but I get to choose the color of the vehicle, I will hand out the money for. That conversation went down in a few dealerships, and let's just say, that they may have learned their lesson in pissing of a member of the "gentler" gender.

None of that had nothing to with liberalism, you may have the words in your constitution, and therefore most of you guys have heard about it, but if it doesn't go in your pocket in the form of a gun, reality is far from it.

Now, to the topic. It's funny that EU is using a shit load of time and money reducing sound waste (there must be a word for this, I just don't know it), and then the only, ONLY good thing about these hateful machines is that they do not disturb the nature with their sound, and that's going to be fixed. I which they would just go back to regulating tomato sizes as they used to do, and I have started to see crooked cucumbers at grocery stores ones again.

Still, as soon as I quit my day job, there will be a revolution and we will not have to fear for the pedestrians anymore.

To have personal property rights (as we did have in this country - also written into the Constitution), sometimes guns are a necessary form of negotiation.

Sorry you experienced a poor side of American social interaction. Not all areas of the country are that way, and in fact, statistically Women in the US actually account for around 65% of the automotive buying decisions within a US household.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

To have personal property rights (as we did have in this country - also written into the Constitution), sometimes guns are a necessary form of negotiation.

Sorry you experienced a poor side of American social interaction. Not all areas of the country are that way, and in fact, statistically Women in the US actually account for around 65% of the automotive buying decisions within a US household.

Property is never important enough to protect with violence. that being written, do not come near my cars with a shopping trolly, or you will see just how much I love the paint job.

I do believe that statistic is false, but again I was not shopping in the minivan section. I did learn a valuable lesson in my expeditions, and in the future it will help me in many ways.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

To have personal property rights (as we did have in this country - also written into the Constitution), sometimes guns are a necessary form of negotiation.

Sorry you experienced a poor side of American social interaction. Not all areas of the country are that way, and in fact, statistically Women in the US actually account for around 65% of the automotive buying decisions within a US household.

It's also why sometimes if a man is married they'll ask if the wife is aware of the purchase.

Plus I didn't realize that we don't have personal property rights anymore. That sucks. When did we lose them? How did I not notice that I no longer have personal property rights?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Lups

Property is never important enough to protect with violence. that being written, do not come near my cars with a shopping trolly, or you will see just how much I love the paint job.

I do believe that statistic is false, but again I was not shopping in the minivan section. I did learn a valuable lesson in my expeditions, and in the future it will help me in many ways.

Sorry, but you are wrong about personal property rights. It's one of the foundations of the country, problem is Liberals tend not to know it, or if they do, they don't accept it. It is a foreign concept to most non-Americans because most countries do not have property rights as part of the legal system. Unfortunately it is not being taught in American schools anymore.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Sorry, but you are wrong about personal property rights. It's one of the foundations of the country, problem is Liberals tend not to know it, or if they do, they don't accept it. It is a foreign concept to most non-Americans because most countries do not have property rights as part of the legal system. Unfortunately it is not being taught in American schools anymore.

I was only giving an opinion, I don't understand your (Americans) willingness to protect land or stuff with violence. As you said, the system back in the north is quite different, and I have to say I prefer it.

This is so OT conversation, that I must apologize.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Lups

I was only giving an opinion, I don't understand your (Americans) willingness to protect land or stuff with violence. As you said, the system back in the north is quite different, and I have to say I prefer it.

This is so OT conversation, that I must apologize.

Most sane Americans will "protect" their stuff through legal avenues. Those who claim otherwise are just being obtuse. Even though it technically is legal for the government to seize your land through eminent domain provided that the land is being used for a public service...I mean it's in the Constitution. Road expansions that run along commercial and residential areas tend to fall into that category.

Don't even know what property rights even has to do with this thread or conversation though.

Maybe @Efthreeoh traveled here from the 18th century where it was common place to settle various disputes through a duel. That'd make sense.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Most sane Americans will "protect" their stuff through legal avenues. Those who claim otherwise are just being obtuse. Even though it technically is legal for the government to seize your land through eminent domain provided that the land is being used for a public service...I mean it's in the Constitution. Road expansions that run along commercial and residential areas tend to fall into that category.

Don't even know what property rights even has to do with this thread or conversation though.

I don't know either, but this beats the hell out of the stuff I'm supposed to do, so I'll take any bait in order to avoid actual work.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Most sane Americans will "protect" their stuff through legal avenues. Those who claim otherwise are just being obtuse. Even though it technically is legal for the government to seize your land through eminent domain provided that the land is being used for a public service...I mean it's in the Constitution. Road expansions that run along commercial and residential areas tend to fall into that category.

Don't even know what property rights even has to do with this thread or conversation though.

Maybe @Efthreeoh traveled here from the 18th century where it was common place to settle various disputes through a duel. That'd make sense.

Well when someone breaks into your house at 2 AM are you going to call a lawyer or use a gun to defend your property? Considering the Supreme Court just ruled a few years ago that a State can use eminent domain to seize personal property and give it to a private developer to increase tax revenues for the State (i.e. the public good - wink wink) the legal system is not doing much good either. People who live in cities and rent apartments don't understand this concept.

Now, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison just came over to enjoy some home brew on the front porch; I must tend to my guests...

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Well when someone breaks into your house at 2 AM are you going to call a lawyer or use a gun to defend your property? Considering the Supreme Court just ruled a few years ago that a State can use eminent domain to seize personal property and give it to a private developer to increase tax revenues for the State (i.e. the public good - wink wink) the legal system is not doing much good either. People who live in cities and rent apartments don't understand this concept.

Now, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison just came over to enjoy some home brew on the front porch; I must tend to my guests...

I'm quite sure, I will never own anything important enough that I would take a gun to protect my ownership rights. If someone decides to come in my house at the gruel time of 2am, I would rather just walk out, and even help him or her load the stuff they want from me. I do know quite well how to defend myself, but I see no need for property to overwrite humanity.

To us in the north, even the wrong doer is a human, and therefore they also have the right to be unharmed. In my books that's the way to go. I do understand where you are coming from, the cultural difference in these matters are just too big to even try to come to an understanding.

I'm sorry about continuing the OT.

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by son_of_siggy

We really need to focus on the behavior of people, rather than continually inventing new ways to crutch stupidity.

+1, this applies not only to driving.

[Ezio]

idk what every one is crying about. who cares what the eco cars are doing. if they started to do this to a M car then i start to care. ohh wait

[majin ssj eric]

This is so silly. Believe me, a car moving fast enough to kill a pedestrian will be making plenty enough road noise from the tires to be easily heard. Certainly more than some dumb, artificial ICE sounds pumped out of external speakers...

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Lups

I'm quite sure, I will never own anything important enough that I would take a gun to protect my ownership rights. If someone decides to come in my house at the gruel time of 2am, I would rather just walk out, and even help him or her load the stuff they want from me. I do know quite well how to defend myself, but I see no need for property to overwrite humanity.

To us in the north, even the wrong doer is a human, and therefore they also have the right to be unharmed. In my books that's the way to go. I do understand where you are coming from, the cultural difference in these matters are just too big to even try to come to an understanding.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Kyle B

I am, sorry.

[ybbiz34]

If an armed intruder comes into my home at night, it will be his last night on this Earth. Not only do these types of intruders not care that they're taking your stuff, they don't care if they have to take someone's life in the home to get away with their thievery. And my life, and the lives of my loved ones, are worth defending by any means necessary.

It's not my business to determine how much others should value their lives and their loved ones.

That was my philosophical attempt to wrap up the detour. This thread is about automotive technology, so let's take it back to that path please.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Well when someone breaks into your house at 2 AM are you going to call a lawyer or use a gun to defend your property? Considering the Supreme Court just ruled a few years ago that a State can use eminent domain to seize personal property and give it to a private developer to increase tax revenues for the State (i.e. the public good - wink wink) the legal system is not doing much good either. People who live in cities and rent apartments don't understand this concept.

Now, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison just came over to enjoy some home brew on the front porch; I must tend to my guests...

Someone breaking into my house at 2 AM is obviously different. He'd get a round of buck shot into his chest and I would see to it that it's his last day on earth, then I'd call the police. Not so much because I don't want them taking my TV, not gonna shoot someone over that, I got insurance for that. If someone breaks into my home, I have no idea if they're there to take my TV or rape anyone in the home and I won't sit there and find out what his intent is either. You break into my home, I assume you have malicious intent and will act accordingly.

If you're mentioning what I think you're mentioning, the USSC case you're referring to happened in Connecticut, where the state tried to claim eminent domain on property in an economic redevelopment zone. They argued that the new development would be in favor of the public because it would create additional jobs, which would therefore increase tax revenue. You coincidentally left that part out. A shiny, new building brings next to squat in tax revenue if no one is in it. Arlington, VA faces that issue now since it has a relatively high vacancy rate (but what would I know about this stuff? I live in the city as you mentioned, not sure what that has anything to do with someone's ability to interpret something). Plus a part of the land would be used for public use. The USSC specifically said that if the land were to go to a sole private partner or individual, then it would've been unconstitutional.

Now, you can agree or disagree with the ruling (I happen to disagree with the ruling myself if I'm honest as I think it creates a dangerous precedent) but at least get it's merits accurate.

But to your point, shooting anyone or waving a gun around wouldn't of stopped them. Sometimes you lose in the court of law due to controversial interpretation of the Constitution, but that's how it works. The Constitution gave the USSC the power to interpret the Constitution and that's just what they did. Unfortunately nothing in the document guarantees that we'll agree with their interpretation.

Now, I ask again, what does all of this have to do with making hybrid cars make silly noises?

[Lups]

I do not consider our kids as our property, and for the taking a life because of a tv, that just doesn't happen where I'm from. Sure, we have theft but no one is desperate enough to kill an other over stuff. This is due to our punishment system, we tend to let people out of jail, instead of just keeping them there till the end of days. Again, it's a different world compared to the U.S.

I think in many ways here people let their fear rule them. A month ago I stopped to help a man with his tire, and it took him 15 minutes to pop the trunk of his car, he was so sure I tried to rob him. Well, I may have originally wanted the X5 he had, but I'm not so bored with my life that I would leave my car, kids and dogs with him while driving of in a 5 year or so old car.

Finally he turned into a rational person, and decided that taking a picture of my license plate was insurance enough for him. All this would be funnier if I was a guy, and it had been dark and we were in the middle of no where, but we were in a nice area, the sun was up, and other people were around, and even tough I try to keep the image of me wearing my hubbys testicles around my neck, I can't claim even that.

Now, defending yourself is something that I can do, and we do have a furry little thing that still can kick almost any ones arse. Still I do not want to think that my life or my property will ever be more important than some ones life, even if he is trying to gain from me.

That's it, no more Ot's from me in this thread, I'm sorry for all of these.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Someone breaking into my house at 2 AM is obviously different. He'd get a round of buck shot into his chest and I would see to it that it's his last day on earth, then I'd call the police. Not so much because I don't want them taking my TV, not gonna shoot someone over that, I got insurance for that. If someone breaks into my home, I have no idea if they're there to take my TV or rape anyone in the home and I won't sit there and find out what his intent is either. You break into my home, I assume you have malicious intent and will act accordingly.

If you're mentioning what I think you're mentioning, the USSC case you're referring to happened in Connecticut, where the state tried to claim eminent domain on property in an economic redevelopment zone. They argued that the new development would be in favor of the public because it would create additional jobs, which would therefore increase tax revenue. You coincidentally left that part out. A shiny, new building brings next to squat in tax revenue if no one is in it. Arlington, VA faces that issue now since it has a relatively high vacancy rate (but what would I know about this stuff? I live in the city as you mentioned, not sure what that has anything to do with someone's ability to interpret something). Plus a part of the land would be used for public use. The USSC specifically said that if the land were to go to a sole private partner or individual, then it would've been unconstitutional.

Now, you can agree or disagree with the ruling (I happen to disagree with the ruling myself if I'm honest as I think it creates a dangerous precedent) but at least get it's merits accurate.

But to your point, shooting anyone or waving a gun around wouldn't of stopped them. Sometimes you lose in the court of law due to controversial interpretation of the Constitution, but that's how it works. The Constitution gave the USSC the power to interpret the Constitution and that's just what they did. Unfortunately nothing in the document guarantees that we'll agree with their interpretation.

Now, I ask again, what does all of this have to do with making hybrid cars make silly noises?

I didn't need to go into the details of the New London case, since tax revenue is tax revenue regardless of how it is generated, but the taking of one's home to allow a private developer to re-develop the land (which they never did by the way) is not the purpose of eminent domain. We are both in agreement anyway.

Regarding EV's, it has to do with Liberals trying to create Utopia.

I'm out of this tread too. Apologies for taking it off course.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Regarding EV's, it has to do with Liberals trying to create Utopia.

I'm out of this tread too. Apologies for taking it off course.

Haha gotcha, so THAT'S what all of this was about.

I mean, I get the safety argument behind it...but are people in the EU running over people left and right because of the lack of noise?

Couldn't they spend their time elsewhere? I personally don't care what the EU does, I wouldn't even care if the US did something similar as I don't drive a hybrid and I like to imagine a Prius coasting through a parking lot sounding like a Boss 302 Mustang for purposes of my own amusement but I get your point.