search results matching tag: purchase

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (289)     Sift Talk (45)     Blogs (25)     Comments (1000)   

The simple tool that can open most US stores

eric3579 says...

My understanding is that it is legal for anyone to purchase and possess lock picking tools. Seller does have to obtain info regarding purchaser, but just basic stuff.

Here are the California codes regarding such tools.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?chapter=3.&part=1.&lawCode=PEN&title=13.

BSR said:

I don't know for a fact but I suspect that you may have to show proof that you are legally allowed to purchase such items. After all "lawyer" is in his title.

The simple tool that can open most US stores

BSR says...

I don't know for a fact but I suspect that you may have to show proof that you are legally allowed to purchase such items. After all "lawyer" is in his title.

My dad showed me how to pick locks when I was 10.

In my 3rd year in high school I got an "A" in English class because the teacher needed to get into a filing cabinet and didn't have the key with her. I told her I could open it but she didn't believe me so I made an deal with her. An "A" in English to pop the lock.

That "A" sure did stand out next to all those "B's" on my report card.

If you've been enticed to be a burglar then that may be a decision you will have to live with.

His videos show that if you want to safeguard your valuables you might want to avoid certain security methods and why so.

newtboy said:

It should be noted, just getting caught with burglary tools can be a 6 month sentence in California.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

JiggaJonson says...

Nah, he was illegally "defending" property that didn't belong to him (silly Wisconsin values human lives [even 'thugs'] more than used cars).

He was illegally practicing medicine by soliciting people and asking if they needed first aid. WI code allows for unlicensed medicine practice in an emergency ONLY (how do we know he was offering services absent an emergency? He was turned down repeatedly, aka there was no emergency where someone needed forst aid). Walking around offering first aid services is illegal without a license. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/448/ii/03

He illegally purchased a firearm through his uncle because he was under age.

He illegally was out past curfew for people 17 and under.

Gee, given all his lack of training and experience and maturity, I wonder why these things are illegal? Oh right, because someone so immature and ignorant of the law or disobedient of the law is more likely to be dangerous and kill someone when it's not warranted.


====

You can't escape the fact that WI law dictates that if he's already doing anything illegal he MUST exhaust all other reasonable options BEFORE using deadly force.

HE DID NOT DO SO. Someone fired a round in the air, someone lunged, and he killed em. Tangeal witnesses hear "he shot someone!" And give chase. He kills another. Why no empathy for the people who suspected he was a "thug" and tried to vigilante justice him?



And
And
And
ANOTHER THING
It's really ugly to witness the duality of your flippant attitude towards people trying to legally claim asylum 'they broke the law' because they went to the wrong entry point because they speak fucking Portuguese and don't always know exactly where they are out in the Mexico desert.
Vs the bizarre justification you're trying to make for this kid who 'broke the law' in, I contend, a series of more serious laws that warrant criminal liability.

If this kid gets off I hope he moves to NC and you run into him once he gets his highway patrol car. You can have him.

I'll take the family in Afghanistan I'm trying to help who, you know, don't get off on killing people.

bobknight33 said:

He was put into harms way the the thugs.

You just upset because he defended himself.

Guess you wanted him to be beaten to a pulp.

Cathie Wood 1700% Tesla & EV Growth WRECKS Legacy Auto

JiggaJonson says...

Don't get me wrong, I want all electric vehicles on our roads; but your lord and savior made it harder to buy Teslas https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml by allowing the tax credit to expire during his term

"Tesla vehicles purchased after 12/31/2019 are not eligible for these tax credits."

Hmmm who was president in 2019? Dunno. Dems are working on a plan to restore the credit to Tesla and GM, but I assume it'll be killed by McConnel and Manchin


Even WITH the tax credit, it's a hard buy for most of us. I just finished paying off my first new car @ about $25k, but I DO make trips longer than 250 miles in a day somewhat regularly. So even the $40k model wouldn't do for me. $52,000 is simply out of my price range. Shit, even 40k is too much for me. SHIT even 35k is too much for a person without a car payment as of a few months ago. No thanks.

I'm gonna ride this car until the wheels fall off, I get 43mpg and I'm satisfied with that.


Tesla stock meanwhile seems to vary wildly. Go get some boring mutual funds brother. Easy come easy go, they say.

Russian State Ballet & Opera House Presents....

Man In The Women's Locker Room Is Now The Norm

Chauvin Guilty of Murder as Calls for Police Reform Grow

newtboy says...

I want to know how after 19 years on the force with a $100000 car, rental homes, $90+ a year at his second job, and who under reported his yearly income by almost $500000 repeatedly can get away with claiming he's broke.

Just like being housed in special high profile (larger nicer single inmate cells, but not solitary) areas of prison with all non white employees barred from the entire floor and white female officers allowed alone in his cell, actually in his bed, to comfort him, even letting him use their cell phones, that's some serious bullshit.

The murderous pig is a millionaire.

Wiki-On July 22, 2020, after the murder charges were brought against him, Chauvin and his then-wife were separately charged in Washington County, Minnesota, on nine felony counts of tax evasion[88][89] related to allegedly fraudulent state income tax returns from 2014 to 2019.[90] Prosecutors state the couple under-reported their joint income by $464,433, including more than $95,000 from Chauvin's off-duty security work.[89][91] The complaint also alleges failure to pay proper sales tax on a $100,000 BMW purchased in Minnesota in 2018, failure to declare income from Chauvin's wife's business, and improper deductions on a rental home.

surfingyt said:

he got Eric Nelson ha ha
the Ls continue to stack for bewb

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/judge-said-derek-chauvin-financially-222111809.html

Icicles Form on Ceiling Fan Amid Freezing Temperatures Texas

newtboy says...

And more Derp..
Reported today, the Texas governor and numerous other officials were warned days ahead of the storm by the then chair of the public utility commission of Texas DeAnn Walker that the state did not have nearly enough natural gas on hand to get through the storm. This, she warned, was guaranteed to cause power outages during the deadly freeze which would result in Texans dying unnecessarily.
They made no moves to get more.
Because they refuse to meet minimum federal standards, they could not just go to their neighbors during the emergency begging for help, but could have purchased more natural gas beforehand...they had plenty of warning to prepare.

Instead the asshats ignored the shortages, ignored the deadly storm, and pretended the power went out because their wind turbines weren't weatherized (which they would have been if they ran like California, especially California before deregulation destroyed our systems decades ago). This led to many deaths by freezing. Foreseen, avoidable deaths and billions in damages.


Once again, since you seem ignorant, California's power problems are due 100% to lack of maintenance by the companies that took over when we deregulated decades ago under Republican Pete Wilson's administration. (Btw, because I don't think you know, between '82 and 2011 California was under Republican leadership for all but 4 years) The for profit companies deferred maintenance so much that now they are the main cause for billions in wildfire damages... and the solution? Not catch up on maintenance, just shut down if there's wind. That's what deregulation gets you. That's what you advocate for and support....then deride as a liberal idea when it fails miserably.
So much ignorant delusion. It's all the right is based on today. Baseless lies and morons who believe it and NEVER verify. Lol indeed.

TangledThorns said:

When the Democrats take over Texas they can run its power just like California's because everyone knows California never has power problems, lol!

Where BLM co founder spends their money

newtboy says...

Such bullshit *lies @bobknight33. Nice try trying to hurt BLMs ability to generate donations with these unfounded accusations, but it's pure bullshit as usual from you and your ilk. Liars.

There's absolutely zero evidence a single dime of BLM money was used, nor is there evidence these homes were actually owned by her or her family, or even evidence they were owned at the same time. The houses described in the articles were two were small homes in South Central and Inglewood, severely depressed areas you would call ghettos, the modest family home in Topanga, not near Beverly Hills as claimed, has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a tiny guest "house" (shed) and sits on just over a quarter of an acre-sized lot, so not a mansion but a small family home, the fourth reported purchase was a home in rural Georgia, so not worth much.

There's actually no evidence she bought anything. Dirt’s article, which is the source that all of the stories and posts about the Topanga home purchase are based on, didn’t report that Cullors purchased the home with BLM donations. It said the home was sold “to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled” by Cullors, but didn’t name the corporation.

Besides being a public figure who is paid to speak at events, Cullors is a best selling author who last year signed a lucrative contract with Warner Brothers, so she has her own money, and filings show she was paid a total of $20000 a year by BLM until 2019 when she stopped taking a dime. There's zero evidence BLM had a thing to do with these purchases, no timeline of when they were purchased or sold, no mention of who lived there....There's nothing but supposition by dishonest people like yourself who have no problem making up hurtful lies about their enemies like 4 year old snot nosed spoiled little girls trying to make themselves feel better....you lying little crybaby snowflake.

We don’t have enough information from the Dirt or Post story to answer questions like: Were these homes consecutively purchased, lived in and sold? Were other parties involved in the reported purchases? Were they lived in by family members? Did any of the addresses crop up due to errors in public records databases?

Such utter bullshit and *lies Bob. Another factless racist and just stupid attack against non whites who you think couldn't possibly buy a house without stealing the money for it.

Gonna leave this here, but I know Bob isn't interested in finding out how his game of radical right wing telephone started so he won't read it.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrisse-cullors-topanga-house/

Btw, this isn't fear, isn't philosophy, is only Wtf because Wtf are you thinking posting these baseless accusations, and only fail because you once again failed to be honest. It's pure political lies by the party of lies that repeatedly make the argument that they aren't required to tell the truth about anything. Facts have a liberal bias, and truth and honesty are for liberals and have no place in your party. You're such a dishonest tool.

Edit: with Trump dividing the country and starting a failed coup with his election fraud fraud he used to bring in hundreds of millions in donations to fight against, a fight he never fought and instead put those hundreds of millions he duped you and your ilk out of into his own pockets to pay off his massive debts, including not just his failed campaign debts (that he still didn't pay for the most part) and his own private debts, it's just hilarious you would try this lie, knowing full well Trump did what you accuse Cullors of a hundred times over AFTER the election with proof he took the money, but not one scintilla against Cullors. 🤦‍♂️

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

newtboy says...

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

newtboy said:

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

Big Red - 1964

StukaFox says...

They got so much right on that one! Today, we actually have trucks and they use engines -- who could have possibly foreseen such wonders in the darkest ages of the late 1960s?! Surely, this is the result of witchcraft combined with technology and just a wee pinch of leaded gasoline and DDT.

Next week on "Our Amazing Future": an astounding device will wait until your wife is asleep and then deliver an unstoppable deluge of pornography directly to you from all over the world -- in COLOR!!

Military scientists are already hard at work on the "inter-net", by which the conveyance of rank smut into your bedroom will forever put to rest that embarrassing walk over to BIG TONY'S TIT-A-TORIUM for your weekly purchases of "Giant Goddamn Asses" and "Judy Hopps Confidential." Apparently you'll also be able to get news and culture and all that other who-cares bullshit, like anyone gives a fuck since there's gonna be way hella titties! And grey fur.

Can someone please recommend a good mental health specialist?

Requiem for a year of loss

Tucker Carlson: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

BSR says...

Oh come on. You probably bought yourself some guns and are getting sick and tired of shooting clay pigeons. All that money you've spent on weapons going to waste while you wrestle with the urge to use them for what you really purchased them for.

I get it though. "No gun. No respect." -Grand Canyon

bobknight33 said:

Conservatives are people of lawful respect. Which after last 30 years our patients are wearing thin.

Liberals are bitch moan and fight to get their way.
Liberals are the party of ilk.

The fight is coming if your ilk keeps pushing.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon