Irish, German, Cherokee, Welsh, Scottish, Dutch with a Vietnamese wife -- what the fuck does tradition even mean to me?!?!?!?! IT MEANS NOTHING. You started this, you fucks. All throughout history!!! Your culture is FALSE and FAKE.

My cousin bought a Grand Cherokee, paid the big bucks. It had a rattle in it.

Good Christian woman, very generous, great neighbor, great cousin.

And she gave that dealership hell until they fixed it.

In Oklahoma, you don't want to mess with the Baptists.

Well this is a very interesting video, because I'm trying to figure out wtf UTA stands for, I'm thinking it's Utah Transit Authority or something. So do they have a rule about not smoking on UTA property? That's got to be it.

I'm thinking these two male cops are thinking what a lot of male cops think, which is why the fuck did this little woman become a police officer.
But i got to cover her ass because she probably can't fight her way out of a wet paper bag. She probably needs to get into the DARE program so her biggest challenge is keeping 7 yr olds from putting boogers on her pantleg.

Of course, some women cops are pretty awesome, pretty fearless, and quite useful. Some, like I suspect this one, is pretty worthless.

I don't understand why they trespassed this guy from UTA property however. I just don't see how that's legal.

The whole interaction is quite irritating because I have to agree with the hoodie guy, nothing makes sense.

Which is fine as far as it goes, until he starts painting all cops are brainless gov't toads who sponge off the taxpayer etc etc etc. You lost me there, boss, because now you're insulting my avocation, in which I take a lot of pride.

Lemme give you an example of police work. Yesterday I helped a lady who had an auto accident, her brand new Mini Cooper got destroyed by some little juvenile driving a big ass Jeep Cherokee.

Today I assisted my Lt. with a neighbor complaint, some jerkoff who sounded like he had 18 Red Bulls for breakfast and wouldn't shut the fuck up had thrown a bunch of trash over a patio divider in an apt. complex because he thought his Latvian neighbor was making too much noise. Nobody got arrested, we were just there trying to resolve these two idiots from killing each other.

Then today I drove some old handicapped biddy 15 miles down the road so she could be with her husband who was having hip surgery. it took us a good 30 minutes to find out where the old codger was but we did it.

Two other officers responded to a family who called about their grown son who was off his meds and had a knife...we've been to this house dozens of times because the son is a fucking mental. I thought for sure this guy would get shot dead today, but turns out he was just arrested and transported to the PD for processing.

A couple of people got arrested for shoplifting, nobody got beat, they got a piece of paper with a court date on it.

etc etc etc

But no, this 'hispanic' dude has to jump to 15 conclusions about what ALL police officers do and it's total bullshit.

Dude, you're about as idiotic as these phony UTA cops.

Where's a mid 90s Jeep Grand Cherokee when you need one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpx6o4gvmXE

Jeep Grand Cherokee Moose Test - The Full Story has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

It's a standard car handling test, simulating avoiding a Moose (a common problem in rural Sweden, or so I'm led to believe)

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jeep-Grand-Cherokee-Moose-Test-The-Full-Story

I first heard of it from the Mercedes Benz A class Moose test failure referenced at the end of the vid above... in that case, many of the journalists rang in their stories (Lada beats Mercedes Benz) first before checking whether the driver was OK!

Actually, before 1997 it was known as “Undanmanöverprov”, Avoidance Maneuver Test, the name "Moose Test" was coined in the aftermath of the Mercedes Benz failure.

@shagen454
i think it unfair to say that people dont have a right to an opinion concerning these matters.
they have every right to an opinion.

just as you have a right to point out that maybe..just possibly..that opinion may be lacking due to never having participated.

but that does not exclude them from participating in the discussion.
it just means their opinion will be biased because it is based on their own subjective experience..or lack of experience.

i mean think about it.
how do you explain,in any substantive way,a 12 hour sweat lodge with a cherokee medicine man on two hits of acid?
how the smoke became people who called themselves guides?
how they revealed the book of life and showed you the pages pertaining to you?
or how in that book you were confronted with your ego?
and you found your ego to be in charge and it was a petulant and selfish child?
and every petty,vindictive and jealous act you ever perpetrated was laid bare and all you could feel was shame?

you cant.
its like a woman trying to explain giving birth to a man.
he will never understand fully because he does not own a uterus.

how do you convey the feelings of connectedness?
not just with your fellow human but with everything else...literally?
how you were able to leave all that baggage on the dirt floor in that sweat lodge and walk away clean,new and reinvented.
how do you describe that to someone who has never,and possibly may never,experienced that?

when you tell someone you a free human being,do they understand what you are actually saying?
or are they fitting that phrase into the context of their own understandings?

so dont bother.it will just lead to misunderstandings and hurt feelings.
maybe one day they will experience what we have...
maybe they never will..
and thats ok.
it is after all..their experience.

the question of consciousness and perceived reality are one of my favorite topics.
excellent talk.
*promote

>> ^jimnms:

...Jeep removed weight not added. They worded it strange, but read it again, it says "Jeep-Chrysler loaded the car with 470 kilos (1 036 lbs), 132 kilos (291 lbs) under the official maximum payload." The previous tests were performed at the maximum official payload the car can carry.
It looks like Jeep could fix it with a suspension upgrade. The Jeep compared to the other two vehicles rolls farther into the turn and bounces where the other two roll into the turn without the bounce.


I was quite confident that you were wrong ...and then I actually read the documentation from the link in the description. It does seem that the initial tests were performed with the vehicle at maximum payload and then they (Jeep engineers or the testing company? both?) removed weight (100kg) for followup tests. So, thanks for setting me straight! In particular, it makes me more impressed with the other vehicles that apparently can handle the increased stress on the tires even at full payload.

That being said, some of this just doesn't seem to add up to me. It seems that after they subtracted weight, they blew the tire in a great majority of the tests (7 in 10?). That kind of failure rate, at or even below the "maximum payload" suggests that the official load ratings are screwed up. The information from the testing team says that there was some discrepancy between Jeep's listed curb weight and the actual curb weight of their test vehicle, and other weird stuff. Suffice it to say that I'm much more confused about their test procedure, the actual sequence of events, and why they were hoping to improve the results from the first (?) test by removing weight.

Interesting comments thread here all around.

>> ^Fransky:
And incidentally, the Grand Cherokee is an off-road truck.
True, but that's not why most people buy them.

Anyone from moose country knows that you NEVER swerve for an animal, anyway. You pile on the brakes and take the impact. Swerving like that either puts you into oncoming traffic, or the soft shoulder, and compounds the problem.

And incidentally, the Grand Cherokee is an off-road truck. The Touareg and its ilk are/were designed as upsized, slightly more capable cars. The Jeep will fare worse on the tarmac because of its origins. The test isn't really apples to apples.

Upon further investigation, she is indian herself. Not that it really matters, but it doesn;t seem that it was racially motivated.

Source

The Cherokee Natives cloaked their irrational belief in sovereignty when they stood up against the first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson. Their armor was the US Supreme Court, the law of the land, but Democracy shown brighter that day and demonstrated to the uppity Engines they have no rights when the majority are whites.

Two wolves. One sheep. Democratically voting the menu of the day.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.
Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.
You don't understand logic either, it seems.

There you go attacking me instead of the argument. I don't think you're a racist, and I understand there's a difference between early Dems and modern Dems. Why not stick to the argument instead of lying and attacking my intelligence in the hopes of changing the subject.
It's you that has your history wrong. Not me. So if I want "to toss out historical examples", as you put it, then I'll certainly do just that because it makes for a better platform than platitudes.


Remind me again, what's your argument? Andrew Jackson was a Democrat, so...what does that have to do with me?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.

But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.
Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.
You don't understand logic either, it seems.


There you go attacking me instead of the argument. I don't think you're a racist, and I understand there's a difference between early Dems and modern Dems. Why not stick to the argument instead of lying and attacking my intelligence in the hopes of changing the subject.

It's you that has your history wrong. Not me. So if I want "to toss out historical examples", as you put it, then I'll certainly do just that because it makes for a better platform than platitudes.

>> ^blankfist:

But, it's you who don't know enough about history. He was certainly a Jeffersonian, but he was the first democratically elected POTUS and believed his Executive authority was greater than any other body of government (or state) because he had the popular vote.
He was a Democrat and a racist. And when he signed into law the Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee nation took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won. But Jackson then trumped the Judicial Branch and said something to the effect of, "They've ruled on it, now let's see them enforce it."
Nothing about the early Democratic Party was near and dear to anything I believe in. It sounds like good ol' fashioned statism at play, if you ask me. But nice try, butterball.


But here's the thing, I don't agree with what Jackson did. I don't agree with the Democratic platform circa 1830. Neither reflect my ideology.

Yet you think somehow because Andrew Jackson did something bad in the 1830's, I must be a racist and a tyrant because I voted for Obama in 2008.

You don't understand logic either, it seems.