TommyRocker
TommyRocker
TommyRocker

correct, we're always taught that pulling out doesn't work.

Subaru AWD can send a max of 80% to the rear. Is that extra 10% that significant? As long as ford makes the rear diff strong enough to handle real power so they don't have to lock it out constantly, I don't see an issue. Sure, true rear biased, longitudinal awd seems ideal, but 70/30 rear bias even on a FWD based

Gotta get the Cobb shifter

I would guess the lack of confidence in his money management is more due to him being unable to save up $500 for a beater in 10 years.

because he hasn't been able to save up to buy a $500 beater in 10 years.

Damn, my first dates usually have a fight or two

why but a raptor when you can buy a mint 1988 Jeep Comanche for less?

I couldn't help but notice you said "girlfriend" but seem to believe she's not insane.

ask the US government/CIA where they came from.

Actually, a week ago I had to look it up. ;)

Though it wasn't exactly used correctly. As far as I know it means a person of exceptional beauty.

Utilitarian 70 years ago is still utilitarian today.

i don't believe in charging someone with potential damages. I think we should only charge with actual damages.

I can't imagine why a guy who travels a lot to make his living would want this around semi permanently but without true commitment.

Originally from Michigan, he strove for an anti-capitalist lifestyle, the pinnacles of which were his militant veganism and leadership in the biking community.

Also whoever has to pay for the damage they caused.

It's not a crime until there's a victim. Maybe the victim here was the woman who was delayed on her way home. You could charge the racers with reckless inconveniencing.

This is from a different story altogether.
"Two people in critical condition" indicates that there WERE in fact victims in that case.

Stealing isn't a victimless crime, the guy you stole from is the victim. And even if he ultimately loses nothing due to insurance, you stole from the insurance company. I don't believe in the legitimacy of victimless crimes. I would argue it further but you've proven yourself incapable of logical discourse with your

yay, government stealing from the people over victimless "crime"