This thread is being viewed by a lot of people from all corners of the enthusiast community. I would suggest a lot of you take Rev's example and clean up your posts because whether you are typing ignorant, blatantly stupid off-topic reactionary word vomit or standing up for someone else's stupid statements you're making yourself look like a tool and it reflects poorly on the people who are actually discussing the matter at hand.Reverend D21 wrote: I also hope he enjoys his vacation from NICO for being a twerp.
AZhitman wrote:Thx Sean, but we disagree on that part.
We were just successful in passing legislation to exempt all vehicles 25 years old and older from Arizona’s mandatory biennial emissions inspection and maintenance program.
SEMA Political Action Committee and SAN are FAR more numerous than Skyline owners, and WAY more vocal.
Well said.Reverend D21 wrote:America: Land of the Free. If we want to drive Skylines then we drive Skylines. Hey feds, try cleaning your own house before you try cleaning mine! f***ers!
You are indeed flat out wrong about everything in this post.ItzGenX wrote:If skylines are deemed "unsafe" then they should just go out there and crush every mazda miata and smart for two car in the country. There is no way those are safer than a full bodied coupe in a car accident regardless of it's make. If you gave me the choice of sitting in a honda crx (for example) or a R34 skyline to get into a crash at some random intersection, I would choose to sit in the skyline. I am sure I will have a higher chance of survival in it. It is also obvious here that the government is trying to cover their tracks on paper by listing the car as contraband. I am sure with all the skylines they have seized now and in the past, they could have taken these said skylines and put them into a crash test to get the issue solved and over with. A few crash tests would probably been cheaper than launching a nationwide seizure campaign. I am pretty sure they will all pass the test based on their year of production. All they need to do is log that data and leave the rest of us alone.
AZhitman wrote:Welcome back, Mello!
Thanks, everyone, for your help. At some point, the right person (or people) will hear about this and the chatter will become more meaningful.
Axoure Dragonkin wrote:I love how almost every poster on discussion has blamed the govt for over reaching, treading on the peoples rights, spending too much money, having nothing better to do, Obama being a Muslim, not showing us a birth certificate, death panels for grandma, taking over health care, mandatory abortions, taking away our guns, and activist judges.
I build commercial airplanes for a living. If Motorex, made jumbo jets, wouldn't you be glad the FAA is all over their a** for violations, keeping your family members from dropping out of the sky. BTW, you don't even want to know what fines are like in the aerospace industry...
I didn't say anything about comparisons in the first paragraph. I'm enumerating the rest of the beliefs that these folks have, and how silly they are using a comic tone.Jesda wrote:Axoure Dragonkin wrote:I love how almost every poster on discussion has blamed the govt for over reaching, treading on the peoples rights, spending too much money, having nothing better to do, Obama being a Muslim, not showing us a birth certificate, death panels for grandma, taking over health care, mandatory abortions, taking away our guns, and activist judges.
I build commercial airplanes for a living. If Motorex, made jumbo jets, wouldn't you be glad the FAA is all over their a** for violations, keeping your family members from dropping out of the sky. BTW, you don't even want to know what fines are like in the aerospace industry...
So you complain about dumb comparisons, and then a few paragraphs later make a dumb comparison.
Nice work, brah.
A proper comparison would be Boeing selling a passenger plane to Delta, telling Delta the plane is good to go while knowning it's not. Delta later gets the book tossed at them by the FAA about their plane that was "good to go" that is infact 'not'. Your comparison would be that the FAA should persue Delta and not Boeing, does that make sense to you?Axoure Dragonkin wrote:I didn't say anything about comparisons in the first paragraph. I'm enumerating the rest of the beliefs that these folks have, and how silly they are using a comic tone.
ROFLCOPTER to the 99th percentile squared.VandrelSOUSA wrote:
Or how about this one since we're fast tracking into la la land: Company "A" buys car "1" and ships it to country "X" knowing that car "1" should NOT be shipped to country "X". Car "1" arrives at company "A" in country "X" and is sold to customer "Z" who in turn sells it to buyer "1" who in turn sells it to buyer "2". Company "A" registers car "1" in country "X" originally, customer "Z" transfers registration to state "A", buyer "1" transfers to state "G", buyer "2" transfers to state "R". 8 years later, Ooooopsies... Government agency "E" found buyer "2"'s car to be (not on record) and therefore proceedes to remove car "1" from country "X" to make "XYZ" profit for agency "C" to justify a physical year budget for agency "E".
First, that's not a fair because I wasn't doing a comparison. I was offering a view of well designed proper regulations that affect our lives every day and are generally well liked.VandrelSOUSA wrote:A proper comparison would be Boeing selling a passenger plane to Delta, telling Delta the plane is good to go while knowning it's not. Delta later gets the book tossed at them by the FAA about their plane that was "good to go" that is infact 'not'. Your comparison would be that the FAA should persue Delta and not Boeing, does that make sense to you?Axoure Dragonkin wrote:I didn't say anything about comparisons in the first paragraph. I'm enumerating the rest of the beliefs that these folks have, and how silly they are using a comic tone.
*grabs collar*Axoure Dragonkin wrote:First, that's not a fair because I wasn't doing a comparison. I was offering a view of well designed proper regulations that affect our lives every day and are generally well liked.
People who buy Skylines usually do so with the knowledge that they are illegal in stock form. It's not like these are popping up all over Craigs List with the "public" accidentally buying them as cheap transportation. There should be a way for consumers who want to pay a premium should be able to bring these cars in without worrying about someone banging down their door. Have it handled at the licensing level such that a waiver must be signed each time the car is registered as an acknowledgment that they did not meet standards.Axoure Dragonkin wrote: In my paragraph about Motorex, I'm offering a legitimate view of a vital govt agency that protects the public from harm. Yes, I deal with FAA regulations every day. Yes, they are a pain in the a**. But they serve a vital role in the well being of the traveling public.
These people who want to slash every regulation on the book so we go back to days before Nixon signed the EPA into law never mention the FAA. WHY? Because it would be political suicide to tell the public we will no longer inspect planes on a regular basis.
Motorex did not fulfill their duty as importer, bottom line. I'm just encouraging the folks out there to blame the people actually responsible.
I don't want to spoil everything all at once but let's just say the government didn't have their s*** in order and got more then they planned for when they jumped in my s***.Ghoztt wrote: What's the latest VandrelSOUSA?