Top Communist Admits: Communist Party ‘Utilizes’ the Democratic Party – a Lesson for

[Pogo]

You're basing the read that "Corvair was a VW copy on the fact that it was air cooled??



Unmitigated malarkey. The Corvair was nothing like the VW except that it was rear-engined. In 1960 ALL of the major auto companies came out with what was called at the time "compact" (read: "not as ridiculously gargantuan behemoth as we've been foisting on you up to now") cars. Ford Falcon, Chevy Corvair, Plymouth Valiant, Dodge Lancer, Rambler American. ALL of them attempts to cash in on the market that VW and its ilk was having success in. That's the only comparison -- trying to access the same market. All of them were scaled-down loose buckets-of-bolts using the same inefficient nonchalant US engineering; none of them compared with VW in terms of design.

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

That's where the phrase "kind of" comes in. Sure you can do it, but what's the point undoing the advantage you just gave yourself?

Literacy -- a lost art.

 

[Redfish]

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

ask the guys that build indy and grand prix cars.

you are really looking dumb on this one, might be time to bow out.

 

[bripat9643]

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

A hotter running temperature isn't an advantage, it's a disadvantage. Furthermore a liquid cooled engine can keep the temperature constant at the optimum. You can't do that with an air cooled engine. There's also nothing more efficient about "the burn" in an air cooled engine. The only real advantages to it are weight and cost. That's one reason motorcycle engines are mostly air-cooled.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

come on, of course it was based on the VW design. Rear engine, air cooled, heater using exhaust manifolds for heat, gas tank in the front. It was a GM VW.
Now, if you are talking about good design vs crappy design, the VW wins by a mile,

So you've just agreed with me and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

 

[Pogo]

So you've just agreed with me and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

ask the guys that build indy and grand prix cars.

you are really looking dumb on this one, might be time to bow out.

Pffft. So now you're gonna tell us Corvair was "copying" Indy cars? Indy cars are not production units, nor are they designed to be.

As for "looking dumb", you're the asshat trying to make the case that this

is somehow a "copy" of this...

Omg look! They both have four wheels and a windshield too!!

 

[Pogo]

So you've just agreed with me and torpedoed your own point.

Air cooling is kind of necessary in a rear-engine car. Neither one invented it. You might as well have claimed Corvair was a "copy" of a Porsche 356. Tucker did it too. Benz used it in the 19th century.

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity. It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit. If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration. It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

 

[Bfgrn]

And the Koch brothers utilize the republican party to advance their idea for a corporate state.

nope, thats Soros and the dems.

You're an idiot...

Koch brothers plan to spend more than political parties

Every American should be concerned about the Koch brothers' announcement to spend close to $1 billion on the 2016 campaign. That amount will exceed the combined amount that both the Democratic and Republican parties spent in 2012. It will give these two brothers the unprecedented advertising power of a third political party and the ability to pick and choose individual candidates.

Directing their vast sums of money for a specific candidate or aiming it against their opponent, the Kochs will be able to dictate the choice for voters. The two Kochs, ranked fifth and sixth richest men in America, could conceivably buy all the total advertising time of every television and radio station in America leading up to the 2016 campaign.

more

have the Kochs and Soros violated any laws? Sorry if our guys have more money than your guys.

sour grapes much?

Sour grapes was you bringing up Soros. No laws are being violated, thanks to Citizen United, which will eventually destroy America and the principles it was founded on.

 

[Bfgrn]

And the Koch brothers utilize the republican party to advance their idea for a corporate state.

nope, thats Soros and the dems.

You're an idiot...

Koch brothers plan to spend more than political parties

Every American should be concerned about the Koch brothers' announcement to spend close to $1 billion on the 2016 campaign. That amount will exceed the combined amount that both the Democratic and Republican parties spent in 2012. It will give these two brothers the unprecedented advertising power of a third political party and the ability to pick and choose individual candidates.

Directing their vast sums of money for a specific candidate or aiming it against their opponent, the Kochs will be able to dictate the choice for voters. The two Kochs, ranked fifth and sixth richest men in America, could conceivably buy all the total advertising time of every television and radio station in America leading up to the 2016 campaign.

more

Have the Kochs and Soros violated any laws? Sorry if our guys have more money than your guys.

sour grapes much?

The Kochs are not going to spend $1 billion of their own money. I think I read somewhere that they are planning on spending $100 million. However, the hope to raise $1 billion from various sources.

but, they are evil rich white conservatives---------don't you get it? Successful people are to be hated, unless they live in hollywood or kiss obama's ass.

I don't hate success, I hate extreme ideologies that will cause harm to Americans.

The most important thing is that whoever we send to Washington is representing We, the People, not being bought and sold by special interests. This is something that has been apparent to liberals and progressives for centuries. But to conservatives who worship a hierarchy, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.



"The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter."
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first principle of the KKK's platform is that the United States is a Christian Nation.

How many of you are KKK'ers, because you agree with them?

 

[bripat9643]

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity.

They are not "more efficient" in terms of heat and power generation. They are less efficient. IF they were more efficient, then why did so many WW II fighters have water cooled engines?

It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit.

They are cheaper, lighter and simpler. We've already acknowledged that much. However, performance isn't one of their advantages.

If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration.

You're an ignoramus if you think air cooled engines don't overheat.

It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

According to Wiki the over-steer problems of the Corvair were entirely imaginary. I'm not sure having a lighter engine would correct the problem either.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

The exhaust can be made just as clean as a water cooled engine. Two-stroke engines are the ones that are inherently dirty.

 

[bripat9643]

nope, thats Soros and the dems.

You're an idiot...

Koch brothers plan to spend more than political parties

Every American should be concerned about the Koch brothers' announcement to spend close to $1 billion on the 2016 campaign. That amount will exceed the combined amount that both the Democratic and Republican parties spent in 2012. It will give these two brothers the unprecedented advertising power of a third political party and the ability to pick and choose individual candidates.

Directing their vast sums of money for a specific candidate or aiming it against their opponent, the Kochs will be able to dictate the choice for voters. The two Kochs, ranked fifth and sixth richest men in America, could conceivably buy all the total advertising time of every television and radio station in America leading up to the 2016 campaign.

more

Have the Kochs and Soros violated any laws? Sorry if our guys have more money than your guys.

sour grapes much?

The Kochs are not going to spend $1 billion of their own money. I think I read somewhere that they are planning on spending $100 million. However, the hope to raise $1 billion from various sources.

but, they are evil rich white conservatives---------don't you get it? Successful people are to be hated, unless they live in hollywood or kiss obama's ass.

I don't hate success, I hate extreme ideologies that will cause harm to Americans.

The most important thing is that whoever we send to Washington is representing We, the People, not being bought and sold by special interests. This is something that has been apparent to liberals and progressives for centuries. But to conservatives who worship a hierarchy, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.



"The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter."
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

It's impossible to put into mere words how totally full of shit you are. William Jennings Bryan was a notorious demagogue, so one has to wonder about anyone who quotes him. He's the guy who prosecuted the Scopes trial, if you don't recall. I would think a religion hating turd like you would despise such a character. Clarence Darrow made a fool out of him.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Right. That's why Ferraris and Lamborghinis are air-cooled.

Every time you post you only demonstrate your ignorance.

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity. It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit. If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration. It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

Principles of aerodynamics.

A rear-mounted engine has empty air (often at a lower pressure) behind it when moving, allowing more efficient cooling for air-cooled vehicles.

Rear-engine rear-wheel-drive layout - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Even back in the day they were smarter than you.

 

[bripat9643]

And the Koch brothers utilize the republican party to advance their idea for a corporate state.

nope, thats Soros and the dems.

You're an idiot...

Koch brothers plan to spend more than political parties

Every American should be concerned about the Koch brothers' announcement to spend close to $1 billion on the 2016 campaign. That amount will exceed the combined amount that both the Democratic and Republican parties spent in 2012. It will give these two brothers the unprecedented advertising power of a third political party and the ability to pick and choose individual candidates.

Directing their vast sums of money for a specific candidate or aiming it against their opponent, the Kochs will be able to dictate the choice for voters. The two Kochs, ranked fifth and sixth richest men in America, could conceivably buy all the total advertising time of every television and radio station in America leading up to the 2016 campaign.

more

have the Kochs and Soros violated any laws? Sorry if our guys have more money than your guys.

sour grapes much?

Sour grapes was you bringing up Soros. No laws are being violated, thanks to Citizen United, which will eventually destroy America and the principles it was founded on.

Yeah, you would like to repeal the First Amendment and make political opinions you don't like against the law. We already know that.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The first principle of the KKK's platform is that the United States is a Christian Nation.

How many of you are KKK'ers, because you agree with them?

The first principle of Leftism is that abortion clinics should be located in black neighborhoods to suppress their numbers.

See what I did there?

 

[bripat9643]

The first principle of the KKK's platform is that the United States is a Christian Nation.

How many of you are KKK'ers, because you agree with them?

The first principle of Leftism is that abortion clinics should be located in black neighborhoods to suppress their numbers.

See what I did there?

I thought the first principle of liberalism is that anyone who disagrees with them should be sent to a re-education camp in North Dakota.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first principle of the KKK's platform is that the United States is a Christian Nation.

How many of you are KKK'ers, because you agree with them?

The first principle of Leftism is that abortion clinics should be located in black neighborhoods to suppress their numbers.

See what I did there?

That is untrue.

But this:

The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation.

As James Madison, known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" stated; " We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

that is right off the KKK's platform. item 1.

http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The first principle of the KKK's platform is that the United States is a Christian Nation.

How many of you are KKK'ers, because you agree with them?

The first principle of Leftism is that abortion clinics should be located in black neighborhoods to suppress their numbers.

See what I did there?

I thought the first principle of liberalism is that anyone who disagrees with them should be sent to a re-education camp in North Dakota.

No, it's Gitmo. They're clearing out all the battle hardened Islamic terrorists so they can refill the prison with those they truly fear.

 

[Pogo]

I said "kind of", jelly face. Meaning it's easier.

You also said "necessary". Who knew that might confuse people?

It's "necessary" unless you want to sacrifice the hotter running temp and efficient burn and simplicity that you got from not building an engine inside an engine. If that's not what you're going for, then what's the point going to the rear?

Your word choice was poor. Nothing is ever "kind of necessary". It is or it isn't. And the point of building the engine to the rear is to take advantage of the lower air pressure behind the vehicle in motion that sucks the hot air out of the engine compartment. It certainly wasn't a requirement for rear engines to be air cooled.

Uhhh.... don't think so. If air pressure were the consideration why were air-cooled engines developed as long ago as the 1880s and in production since the 1920s? And what of the motorcycles and lawnmowers?

Air cooling is simply more efficient in terms of heat and power generation, as well as fuel efficiency and weight/complexity.

They are not "more efficient" in terms of heat and power generation. They are less efficient. IF they were more efficient, then why did so many WW II fighters have water cooled engines?

No, they're more efficient at burning fuel. They're allowed to run hotter. This is simple physics, probably beyond the ken of a child with jelly smeared on his face.

It doesn't require a separate water jacket and pump and all that shit.

They are cheaper, lighter and simpler. We've already acknowledged that much. However, performance isn't one of their advantages.

If you're old enough to remember how common overheated radiators and failed water pumps were you have an idea why that's a consideration.

You're an ignoramus if you think air cooled engines don't overheat.

I might be if that had been I had posted. It isn't.

Learn to read.

It's a lighter engine all things being equal too, and when you're moving your centre of gravity back that far you'd better take that into account. Witness the atrocious oversteer problems the Corvair had.

According to Wiki the over-steer problems of the Corvair were entirely imaginary. I'm not sure having a lighter engine would correct the problem either.

On the downside it can spew dirtier exhaust, but that clearly wasn't a consideration in 1960.

The exhaust can be made just as clean as a water cooled engine. Two-stroke engines are the ones that are inherently dirty.

Once again it's back to the the higher combustion temps, which vastly increase Nitrates of oxygen. Don't worry your jelly-smeared little face over it if this is all over your head. Bottom line is still that the Corvair is not copy of the VW simply because it put its engine in the back, regardless how it was cooled.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The first principle of the KKK's platform is that the United States is a Christian Nation.

How many of you are KKK'ers, because you agree with them?

The first principle of Leftism is that abortion clinics should be located in black neighborhoods to suppress their numbers.

See what I did there?

That is untrue.

But this:

The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation.

As James Madison, known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" stated; " We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

that is right off the KKK's platform. item 1.

http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm

Actually, the land was dedicated to Christ on a Virginia beach centuries before it even became a nation. Trying to say that the KKK came up with that idea makes you a world class jackass.....not as if it were ever in question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first principle of the KKK's platform is that the United States is a Christian Nation.

How many of you are KKK'ers, because you agree with them?

The first principle of Leftism is that abortion clinics should be located in black neighborhoods to suppress their numbers.

See what I did there?

That is untrue.

But this:

The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation.

As James Madison, known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" stated; " We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

that is right off the KKK's platform. item 1.

http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm

Actually, the land was dedicated to Christ on a Virginia beach centuries before it even became a nation. Trying to say that the KKK came up with that idea makes you a world class jackass.....not as if it were ever in question.

You agree with the KKK though, correct? Quit trying to dodge the issue.