RowdyRebel

Speedometer has never worked, odometer quit, and the oil pressure gauge was finicky...so I'm putting all new gauges in. Just got to do a little soldering and it'll slip right in behind the original dash panel. Also gaining a tach.

Then, I decided to disconnect the power door lock actuator rod from the lock mechanism since I really don't care to fight with this stupid door anymore. Locks & unlocks with the key and the newly fabricated lock knob just fine, and the door opens and closes smoother than it ever has. Now all I have to do is get the dash put back together...

Then, while the door was open, I replaced the upper & lower latches, as well as the door handle...and the power door lock actuator. UNFORTUNATELY, the new power door lock actuator was so stiff that the key couldn't lock or unlock the door with it hooked up. So, I decided to add a little something GM forgot...used my drill and some 1/8" rod and added an interior lock knob.

Back door problem solved...just needed a hole saw, chisel, and a BFH. Gave the release mechanism a good thump, reached inside the door to trip the top latch release, then gave the door a good swift kick from the inside...and she opened right up.

So we have a bunch of speculation of what "might" happen, vs the alternative where the person who would have been running things has a long history of selling influence and who's only motivation for running was to keep the money flowing into her family "charity"? Once again, your arguments against what Trump "MIGHT" do are precisely what Hillary was running with the express purpose of doing. So you are OK with the Clinton's absolutely selling influence over US policy to foreign governments...but are against the possibility that foreign governments might alter THEIR policies to be more friendly to the Trump brand?

Damn. Not the news I wanted to read tonight (or any other time for that matter). Thoughts & prayers.

Painting things on ANY building you don't own or have legal control over is a crime. Paint whatever you want on your own building...even if it might "offend" someone. Your property, do with it as you please. If I don't like the way it looks, I can choose to not look at it. I don't even care if I agree wholeheartedly with the message you paint, though, if you paint it on MY building, I'm going to press charges for vandalism. YOU don't have the right to paint YOUR message on MY building, just as I don't have the right to paint MY message on YOUR building. YOUR building, do as you please. MY building, I'll do as I please. That's how property rights (also protected under the Constitution) work.

Also working on replacing the gauge panel. Speedometer has never worked, but the Odometer was still clicking off the miles. Well, that quit, too. Can't replace "just" the gauge that doesn't work...damn cluster. Found an aftermarket cluster in the LMC catalog that said it had all of the warning lights included for the "stock" look...and it mounts behind the original dash...so I ordered it. Should have paid the extra $500 and got the Autometer gauges with their replacement panel. Gauges would have looked better (more variety to choose from to pick ones we liked), and we would have got EXACTLY what we ordered. The tach on the gauge kit we ordered is supposed to have a blue halo light for the high beam indicator...supposed to be a wire on the backside to splice the wire into...ain't there. No wiring for any other lights...check engine, brake, etc...despite the catalog saying it'd have them. This is why I hate mail-order stuff...don't always get what you thought you were buying. Anyway, Dorman has some pretty slick looking LED indicator lights in a variety of colors...and some momentary-on push button switches that match and look a hell of a lot better than the cheap little plastic buttons they sent to reset the trip meter and such for the speedo and tach. Picked 'em up in all 5 colors...blue, red, amber, green, and white. Since I don't know how we'd label them without it looking cheap, I figured it'd just be best to use different colors...blue for high beam, red for brake, amber check engine, and not sure which yet for seatbelt and battery...could go either way. At least that way if a light lights up, we know what it's trying to tell us. There's also a couple other lights I might make them...perhaps 4x4 instead of the seat belt...haven't quite made up my mind. Anyway, I should probably get back to work on it...gotta get it done & back on the road.

Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The Constitution states quite clearly that Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Congress did so anyway, and the courts have rejected every attempt to enforce that aspect of it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and NO act of congress can overrule it. So yes, TECHNICALLY there is a law on the books, but it isn't worth the paper it's printed on because it violates the Constitution. ...and that is the difference between you and I. While I may find an action to be objectionable, disgusting, or even revolting, I support the right others may have to choose to do what I have chosen NOT to do. You seem to think that if YOU find an action objectionable, disgusting, or revolting, that NOBODY ought to be allowed to partake in that activity. I don't smoke, but I support the right of establishment owners to choose whether or not to allow it in their businesses. I vehemently oppose smoking bans despite the fact that I find the smell of cigarette smoke revolting. I have the right to choose not to enter smoke filled rooms. I don't burn flags, other than retiring them respectfully when they are worn beyond repair. I don't feel it is an appropriate way to demonstrate a dislike of a policy or action by the government...but I support the right of those who would feel otherwise to do so. I have the right NOT to watch it and to ignore their little protest. That's how it works in a republic, where the individual is sovereign and gets to make his own decisions. You've made it clear that you'd prefer a democracy, where majority rules and it's tough shit if somebody doesn't agree with the majority because they were outnumbered in the vote. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. I choose to err on the side of Liberty, because someday you'll find yourself in the position of the lamb and what right will you have to contest the vote if you denied that ability to everyone else who disagreed with you when you happened to be in the majority? The Constitution says what it says, and no law can change it. Only through the amendment process can it be altered, which is difficult for a reason...to protect the voice of the lamb.

You don't have to link to it, I freely admit to the fact that as much as I dislike seeing it and as much as I'd like to punch those who would do such a thing in the face, it IS their right to burn their own property as a means to protest and express their grievance with the policies and actions of the government...so long as burning is allowed (i.e. no "burn bans" or other prohibitions on open fires in general) at the location where the protest is taking place. If you feel you have the right to silence their protest, it would be hypocritical then for you to speak out against something (a regulation, law, or any other government action) that you disagree with. "Congress shall make NO LAW..." Yes, I will adamantly defend the Constitution. I'm rather consistent in that regard, and I'm not ashamed of that fact.

The current system leaves the voting at the discretion of the states. Most states are "winner take all"...which is fine. Some states award 2 electors to the overall winner of the state, and then another elector to the winner of each congressional district. I happen to PREFER that second approach, as it minimizes the impact of voter fraud in the cities. Chicago is notorious for having the ballot boxes stuffed..."vote early, vote often". Philly. Did you really believe that there wasn't ONE SINGLE VOTER in 59 different precincts who pulled the lever for Romney in 2012? Or the same story in 9 different precincts in Cleveland? Let's not forget about the Black Panthers intimidating likely McCain voters in Philly 2008. No charges were pursued by the Obama Justice Dept...how is that different than what occurs in 3rd world dictatorships where the winner gets 98% of the vote because they know anyone who votes for the opposition party may not make it home? Election fraud runs rampant enough when the elections are run by the states. Things NEVER improve when the federal government takes over. From education to health care, the federal government has proven inept at running anything well...and now you want to let them run the elections too? Screw that.

The last paragraph you quoted answers your question...all of the above! You seem to lack understanding in the reasons behind why it was and still remains necessary, while failing to comprehend the problems that will arise from abolishing the electoral college...or perhaps you just don't care about those problems because it makes it easier for the corrupt political machines in the large cities to impact the national election instead of just their single state, or you have no interest in ensuring those of us in "flyover country" get to have our say. Or perhaps you would've preferred Hillary, and now wish to change the rules after the fact to affect the outcome in a manner which you deem beneficial to your own personal political leanings. Doesn't really matter, since the outcome is pretty much the same. You'd rather have an election that is easily corruptable where a clear winner may not be known without an insanely expensive recount...$0.30/ballot in some cases...times the nearly 130,000,000 votes cast nationwide...and a country that's already $20 Trillion in debt has to come up with ANOTHER $39,000,000 just to figure out who "won" a close race. Makes perfect sense to a liberal, I guess...win at any cost, even if you have to lie cheat and steal to get close enough to make changing the rules a feasible way to ensure the outcome you desire. We are not a democracy. We never have been, and if this country wishes to remain strong, it never should become one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/voter-fraud-california-man-finds-dozens-ballots-stacked-outside-home.html http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/10/heres-what-voter-fraud-looks-like-in-23-states-2/ http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/cbs4-investigation-finds-dead-voters-casting-ballots-in-colorado/ http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/ http://theantimedia.org/heres-a-rundown-of-election-fraud-in-the-2016-presidential-race-so-far/ http://www.inquisitr.com/3517294/2016-nevada-voter-fraud-allegation-irrefutable-evidence-of-corruption-favoring-clinton/ Every person's vote is NOT equal when illegals, ineligible voters, the deceased, and people registered in several jurisdictions are casting ballots...multiple ballots...not to mention the ballots that are "lost" or "misplaced". Each incident currently only affects a single state's outcome, NOT the national election. And if it's close? How expensive do you suppose a NATIONWIDE recount will be? The system we have is there for a reason, and has served us well. EDUCATE yourself...unless you're desiring to see election fraud become a major issue rather than the localized problem it currently is. Given your posts in this thread, might even be a hint of sore loser thrown in too.

This here is an interesting read: http://greengarageblog.org/10-far-reaching-pros-and-cons-of-the-electoral-college I couldn't help but notice how many of the "disadvantages" are such because it is "harmful to the democracy". Funny, because we are NOT a democracy and never have been. We are a Republic. The difference between a democracy and a republic: https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm There are 3 types of people advocating the dissolution of the electoral college: sore losers, the uneducated, and those who would like to see voter fraud in the cities affect the outcome of the entire election instead of only the individual states where it occurs.

The people DO get their say...in the House of Representatives. The people also seized the states voice for themselves with the 17th Amendment. Now you're advocating yielding the presidency to the "popular" vote, despite the fact that a majority in the popular vote is not common enough to keep many elections from being decided by the house. NO Clinton has EVER received a majority in the popular vote!

A popular vote "advantage" was ALL she had. She did not "WIN" a majority of the vote, so had there NOT been an electoral college, the election would have gone to the House of Representatives. 50% + 1 is required to have a majority, and NO Clinton has ever achieved that in the popular vote. Not even Bill.

Murphy was definitely alive & well...measured the rough opening before we ordered the back door and knew it'd be tight but figured it'd fit. I guess it was just a "patio" door before...2 panels, but only 1 opened. For ease-of-move purposes, I wanted french doors...just back the truck up, open the doors, and load. Replaced the front door a couple weeks ago, and wanted the back doors to compliment the front, since they are opposite ends of the same room. Anyway, had to open the hole in the wall about 2-3" on the top & one side. Was going to trim 1/2 the amount needed from each side, then thought to measure from the opening to the exterior light on each side. Taking all off of one side was 1/2 the trimming and would also center the door more closely between the lights. I swear whoever built this house did a pretty crappy job...not much attention to details like that. Hell, in the master bath the hardwood floor was laid AFTER the sink was installed...but in the other bathroom, the flooring goes under the sink...not to mention the plumbing I fixed a few years ago in the 2nd bathroom where BOTH the hot & cold lines running to the sink were tapped into the same cold water line going to the tub...just 10' apart. Needless to say, that explained why there was no hot water at the sink. Anyway, I'll be glad when I find someone to take this place off my hands. The new doors:

Like a hot knife through butter...

Put in a new door yesterday and had to make a bigger hole in the wall to get it to fit. All I can say is Diablo makes a hell of a blade!

And this election really wasn't about Trump and how much his supporters believe in his policies. It was about how tremendously HORRIBLE Hillary would have been, and a rejection of "politics as usual". He's NOT a career politician, and because of that he hasn't spent his entire life contemplating and developing political positions on every issue. So somebody throws him a curve ball during an interview and he puts his foot in his mouth making a gut reaction response. Then he gets informed on the issue and if he no longer likes the position he initially took, he changes. If more info comes his way, he may change again as a result. So what if he's not glued to a position? So many politicians ARE even when they are dead wrong. As for the pro-life stance, that SHOULD be the official position of government. Governments are instituted among men to secure certain unalienable rights, among them LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Without LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness don't really mean a whole heck of a lot, now do they? And if in your Pursuit of Happiness you make certain choices, shouldn't actions have consequences? The left has made sure everybody knows exactly how babies are made, and if you're going to participate in that activity in your pursuit of happiness, it IS a potential outcome. Actions have consequences, and governments are tasked with protecting life. We're under no illusions that Trump might screw a few things up. The difference between him and Hillary, though, is that he MIGHT get a few things right, too.

Trump DID win the majority of the only vote that matters...the electoral college. Every state gets a number of electors equal to their representation in the House and Senate. DC even gets 3 votes. Trump won the majority (50% + 1) of electoral votes. Hillary may have won a plurality of the irrelevant nationwide popular vote...but she did not win a majority of ANY vote. Hell, if you want to read about a contentious election, check out what happened in 1824...makes recent elections seem uneventful. All 4 candidates were from the same party, and the guy who won the plurality of the popular vote and even the plurality of the electoral college DID NOT win the election. Since nobody got the required 50%+1 of the electoral college vote, the election went to the House of Representatives where they selected the guy who came in 2nd to be the next President. They could've selected the 4th place guy if they'd wanted to, which is the risk you take sending the election to the House. Do you trust Congress?

I heard Chelsea is getting ready to run for Congress. Now that her parents aren't going to be holding any more "positions of power", it's the only way to keep money flowing into their family foundation. Nobody's going to be funneling money to them if it can't influence policies.

The "reasons" I posted are just as relevant today as they were on September 17, 1787. Our President needs to be elected by a majority...50%+1, not a plurality (most votes of any in the race). If it were left to the popular vote, NO Clinton has EVER received 50%+1 of the popular vote! When the election has a DECICIVE victor based upon the system in place and there are protests (bought & paid for, no less) in the streets, imagine how bad it would be in a 10-12 person race where the winner only received 10-15% of the vote? When 85-90% of the country are opposed to the president? THAT is why the 50%+1 majority to win is in place.

You could have requested an absentee ballot, so being "out of the country" is irrelevant. You CHOSE not to voice your opinion when the options were there, so don't gripe about the lack of options now. Second, the system the Founders put in place had a purpose which had served this country well up until the 17th Amendment was ratified. The House was the people's voice in the federal government, and was therefore elected by the people through direct elections. The Senate spoke for the States' interests in the federal government, and was therefore selected by the State Legislators, who were elected by the people. The States LOST their voice with the 17th Amendment, leading to members of 1 branch of government doing as they please for 5 years, then pandering to the ignorant masses for the final year of their term to get re-elected. There IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote for the President! The president is SUPPOSED to be nothing more than a public figure-head with limited powers and a few specific duties. Think of it as the CEO of a large public corporation. You as a common share-holder don't get to vote for the CEO...he's appointed by the board of directors. You may or may not get to vote in who sits on that board. Then, you're also forgetting that an actual MAJORITY (50%+1) is required to "win", thus avoiding a president being selected with 20% of the vote because he had 10 people running against him. The greater number of viable candidates that are on the ballot, the less likely it is that a president is selected ON election day. There is no "run off" election. If nobody gets 50%+1, it goes to the House to select the winner...unless a deal is struck in the electoral college where one candidate with only a handful of electors throws his support (and electors) behind another candidate to give THEM the majority needed to win. Without the Electoral College, that cannot happen, so more often than not the House would be choosing the President...ESPECIALLY with 10-12 names on the ballot. The system was set up this way for a reason. Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't a good system.