Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
upnorth

Universal truth

18 posts in this topic

Got this in an email and thought it was pretty interesting.

Quote:
Thought you'd like...

“The massively cruel and ruinous communistic experiment of the Soviet Empire would not have been necessary if philosophers and intellectuals had not ignored a basic truth about human nature: Human beings, as a derivative of the instinct to survive, are innately driven to act in their own self interest. Notwithstanding propaganda, conditioning or brute force, any government or institution which runs head on against the grain of this basic human drive is doomed to fail. We seem not to have learned a basic lesson of history: Capitalism harnesses human self interest; socialism exhausts itself trying to kill it. The bureaucrats, who seize and dole out other people’s assets, initially see themselves as humanitarians. Eventually, they conclude they are indeed superior to others, and treat themselves accordingly. They make laws to which they are not subject; they vote themselves and their wards privileges and benefits. Then, they no longer serve—they rule a nation of the government, by the government and for the government.” —Linda Bowles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They make laws to which they are not subject; they vote themselves and their wards privileges and benefits. Then, they no longer serve—they rule a nation of the government, by the government and for the government.

Is this the part were they have a different retirement program then us ? confused

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Is this the part were they have a different retirement program then us ? confused

That and more not so widely publicized. Travel here, travel there, per diem, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand it right, I could be wrong, they do not pay into social security. They have there own plan which the tax payer supports for their retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand it right, I could be wrong, they do not pay into social security. They have there own plan which the tax payer supports for their retirement.

Correct. If you want SS fixed, how bout making them live on it when they retire. Bet it would be fixed the first year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not only that, but if they are caught commiting a felony and go to prison, i am pretty sure they still get their retirement.

if central planning/control was so great, why do the people of these countries have to be oppressed and forced to stay in them? whenever i hear the term people's republic, what it really means is the government owns all. the people own nothing. the republicans in 1994 made the fact that the dems were passing laws and exempting themselves from those laws... then they proceeded to do likewise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
whenever i hear the term people's republic, what it really means is the government owns all. the people own nothing.

Yep. And sad to say we are heading down that path slowly but surely. Why else would career politicians want to be perpetually re-elected, they aren't public servants, more like ruling class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

communism was a brand of socialism that is alive and well in much of europe. Communism is just like it sounds, commune like the hippies, the all for the group thing. Of course ot fails.

a group like a family can live in a comune like setting where the family is the focus and all resources go to the family but as soon as they are old enough to go out and take care of themselves those members leave to start their own commune/family, replaced by the old who can no longr care for themselves. Communism does not allow one to take care of themselves or make room for those who have taken care of themselves and others to be cared for. Communism was like a family where the kids never grow up and leave the house of the government parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to compose something of value in response to this thread but keep getting sidetracked by its title.

If there is a universal truth, no one among us has the intelligence and compassion to understand that truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title was the subject of the email(not my creation), and even if it isn't universal, it sure isn't far fetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would like to se EVERY SINGLE politician from State reps on up ousted and replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the premise of the quote starting this thread has a fair amount of truth to it…that the failure of individuals to abandon their own self interest in favor of acting in the interest of society as a whole is a contributing factor to the failure of socialism/communism, the failure of those economic systems runs much deeper.

It starts with deficiencies in the very basic premise of socialism…that premise being best defined by Marx as “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”.

The statement “…to each according to their needs” makes the assumption that there is/will be enough of whatever good/service is in question to actually meet everyone’s needs. There is no mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources. What happens when there suddenly is not enough to satisfy “each according to their needs”?

And the initial premise of “From each according to their ability” leaves no room for rewarding those who are more productive, or for rewarding innovation or invention. Thus, there is no incentive to be more productive or more innovative…thus severely limiting productivity, creating shortages and an inability to meet the "needs of each".

While the free market system addresses these deficiencies, fostering and rewarding innovation, productivity, and invention – we know that the mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources is, in large part, unfair and creates inequality.

But the important point here is that we KNOW it creates inequality. And we create mechanisms – from government ‘safety nets’ to various charities – to address this. Socialism has no such mechanism, because its very premise fails to recognize that there may not be enough to go around; it does not accept the premise that there is a need for such mechanisms.

But beyond the structural and ‘mechanical’ failures of socialism, there is another cost to the equality promised by socialism/communism. Going back to the premise, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” we have to ask a basic question:

Who defines/determines “needs”?

And how is that determination enforced? There could be no pretense of privacy, or individual liberty and choice in such a society. That is the tradeoff…the free market, with its efficiency and innovation, at the cost of equality as opposed to socialism’s promise of equality, with its cost of sacrificing liberty, privacy and productivity.

A quote from John Stuart Mill on socialism…I think it is from “On Liberty”, but am not completely certain:

“…the question is whether there would be any asylum left for individuality of character; whether public opinion would not be a tyrannical yoke; whether the absolute dependence of each on all, and the surveillance of each by all, would not grind down to a tame uniformity of thoughts, feelings, and actions…No society in which eccentricity is a matter of reproach can be in a healthy state.”

That is why socialism fails, and why it would be undesirable even if it could succeed. The cost of equality is too great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the premise of the quote starting this thread has a fair amount of truth to it…that the failure of individuals to abandon their own self interest in favor of acting in the interest of society as a whole is a contributing factor to the failure of socialism/communism, the failure of those economic systems runs much deeper.

It starts with deficiencies in the very basic premise of socialism…that premise being best defined by Marx as “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”.

The statement “…to each according to their needs” makes the assumption that there is/will be enough of whatever good/service is in question to actually meet everyone’s needs. There is no mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources. What happens when there suddenly is not enough to satisfy “each according to their needs”?

And the initial premise of “From each according to their ability” leaves no room for rewarding those who are more productive, or for rewarding innovation or invention. Thus, there is no incentive to be more productive or more innovative…thus severely limiting productivity, creating shortages and an inability to meet the "needs of each".

While the free market system addresses these deficiencies, fostering and rewarding innovation, productivity, and invention – we know that the mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources is, in large part, unfair and creates inequality.

But the important point here is that we KNOW it creates inequality. And we create mechanisms – from government ‘safety nets’ to various charities – to address this. Socialism has no such mechanism, because its very premise fails to recognize that there may not be enough to go around; it does not accept the premise that there is a need for such mechanisms.

But beyond the structural and ‘mechanical’ failures of socialism, there is another cost to the equality promised by socialism/communism. Going back to the premise, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” we have to ask a basic question:

Who defines/determines “needs”?

And how is that determination enforced? There could be no pretense of privacy, or individual liberty and choice in such a society. That is the tradeoff…the free market, with its efficiency and innovation, at the cost of equality as opposed to socialism’s promise of equality, with its cost of sacrificing liberty, privacy and productivity.

A quote from John Stuart Mill on socialism…I think it is from “On Liberty”, but am not completely certain:

“…the question is whether there would be any asylum left for individuality of character; whether public opinion would not be a tyrannical yoke; whether the absolute dependence of each on all, and the surveillance of each by all, would not grind down to a tame uniformity of thoughts, feelings, and actions…No society in which eccentricity is a matter of reproach can be in a healthy state.”

That is why socialism fails, and why it would be undesirable even if it could succeed. The cost of equality is too great.

socialism is one of those things that sounds wonderful but for the most part fails. Capitalism is one of those things that sounds hard and cruel but for the most part works

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with socialism is that it forces those us to go against our own greedy human nature and this throws us off balance. The problem with capitolism is that it encourages and even rewards us for our greedy human nature. Somewhere in the middle lies the balance we all hope to get.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with socialism is that it forces those us to go against our own greedy human nature and this throws us off balance. The problem with capitolism is that it encourages and even rewards us for our greedy human nature. Somewhere in the middle lies the balance we all hope to get.

Bob

socialism and socialists believes that human "greed" can be regulated. It can't. so it fails

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2008 COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS,

TEXAS A&M

Neal Boortz is a Texan, a lawyer, a Texas AGGIE (Texas A&M), and now a nationally

syndicated talk show host from Atlanta. His commencement address to the

graduates of this year's A&M class is far different from what either

the students or the faculty expected. His views are thought provoking:

"I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion.

It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you;

you'll have enough smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can

bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration.

You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will

remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world.

This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek

your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying

that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously

insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find

feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty

because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind

me are going to stay right here and teach.

By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean

the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's

license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same

can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.

Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact,

you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much.

You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all you're

a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just

so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to

be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You

have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality

down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast... including

your own assessment of just how much you really know.

So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay

attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and

phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes.

Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from

those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will

hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the

Liberals you will hear references to groups -- The Blacks, the Poor, The

Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear

references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on

the Right, individual rights.

That about sums it up, really:

Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied

up in group dynamics. Conservatives think -- and, setting aside the

theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Liberals feel that their favored groups have enforceable rights to the

property and services of productive individuals.

Conservatives, I among them I might add, think that individuals have the

right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the

masses.

In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely

at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on

them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or

sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away.

Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.

If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider

yourself to be a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can

and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open

arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed an

individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to

the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.

Something is going to happen soon that is going to really

open your eyes. You're going to actually get a full time job!

You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't

going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back

nd wait for payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort,

but in your earnings.

Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing

a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for every teenager

with an illegitimate child; an agent for a research scientist who wanted

to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys

grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers

herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can't manage

to sell any of her artwork on the open market.

Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job

skills, but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent or tin-horn dictators

in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent

for multi-million- dollar companies who want someone else to pay for

their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use

the unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment

and benefit.

That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive

government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power

this agent has. Power that you do not have. A power that no individual

has, or will have. This agent has the legal power to use force, deadly

force to accomplish its goals.

You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you,

introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right

on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla. It will sleep anywhere

it wants to.

Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap.

As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn.

And no, I'm sorry, there just isn't any way you can fire this agent of

plunder, and you can't decrease its share of your income. That power rests

with him, not you.

So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be

clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear

government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government

for government is inherently evil. Yes ... a necessary evil, but dangerous

nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper

dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.

Now let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds

at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon

as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they

fail miserably out there in the real world.

First is that favorite buzz word of the media and academia: Diversity!

You have been taught that the real value of any group of people -

be it a social group, an employee group, a management group,

whatever - is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because

diversity is based not on an individual's abilities or character, but on a

person's identity and status as a member of a group. Yes, it's that

liberal group identity thing again.

Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial,

gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the

individual's integrity, character or other qualifications.

Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere

where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual

achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors

have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity

is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. From this

day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can rest

assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of

every vestige of individuality you possess.

We also need to address this thing you seem to have about "rights." We have

witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called "rights" in the last few decades, usually

emanating from college campuses.

You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live.

The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You

probably even have your own pet right - the right to a Beemer for instance,

or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading

in a year or so.

Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are! You have a right

to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I'll also tell you have no

right to any portion of the life or labor of another.

You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After all,

Hillary said so, didn't she? But you cannot receive healthcare unless some

doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to

you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice.

You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or

any other person's life or to any portion thereof.

You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living wage,

whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force

your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this

person compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you

would scream if some urban outdoorsmen (that would be "homeless person"

for those of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a

romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your

money.

The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are

simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being

imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their right,

and they exercise it brilliantly.

By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase "less fortunate" a bit ago

when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a

favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.

To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced

out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because

he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a

job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was

"fortunate." The dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good

from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good

from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery

from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.

If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure

are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify

their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just

evening out the odds a little bit. This "success equals luck" idea the

liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic presidential

candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as "people who have

won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks

because they are lucky. It's not luck, my friends. It's choice. One of the

greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled "The

Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple: "Use wisely your

power of choice."

That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there

by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made

in his life. This truism is

absolutely the hardest thing for some people to

accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something

or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever.

After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life.

Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!"

than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You S. O. B.! You did this to me!"

The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your

choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or

failure, however you define those terms.

Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school Whether

or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle.

Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another

better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle

yourself with huge payments for that new car.

Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with.

Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on

investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each

choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a

part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if

you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible

may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one

of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful,

the rich.

The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the

investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new

businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of

paychecks home each week to the un-rich.

Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred.

Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans

feel for the evil rich.

Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield

that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns.

Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising

the envious that the envied will be punished: "The rich will pay their fair share of

taxes if I have anything to do with it. The truth is that the top 10% of income earners

in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think

what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more

"fair."

You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the

poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer.

But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor ...

there's an explanation -- a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things

that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless

string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor So, you need to know

that under our government's definition of "poor" you can have a $5 million net

worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for.

You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and a million in your checking account,

and you can still be officially defined by our government as "living in poverty."

Now there's something you haven't seen on the evening news.

How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or

not some poor soul is "living in poverty," the government measures one thing --

just one thing. Income. It doesn't matter one bit how much you

have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are,

whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend

the summers in the Bahamas , or how much is in your savings account. It

only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means

that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and

decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while

you write the next great American novel, the government says you are

'living in poverty."

This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics,

is it? Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics

show that people who are said to be "living in poverty" spend more than $1.50

for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. Just remember all

this the next time Charles Gibson tells you about some hideous new poverty

statistics.

Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the

government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs,

which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you,

in all your compassion, that the number of "poor" is increasing, it will have all the

excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of

Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.

I'm about to be stoned by the faculty here. They've already changed their minds

about that honorary degree I was going to get. That's OK, though. I still have my

PhD. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training.

I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth

knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and

you'll be unable to deal with life, or the truth So, get over it.

Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.

* You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the

efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are

on your own again.

* When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important

than your vote for president. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your

awareness there.

* Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the country.

If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing.

* Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder.

If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it -- to take their

money by force for your own needs -- then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand

that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.

* Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What they

earn is theirs. What you earn is yours Keep it that way.

Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights,

and leave you the [PoorWordUsage] alone.

* Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers.

Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't

see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five.

The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners

drive home in the dark.

* Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech.

Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

*

Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,

"1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.

2. Use wisely your power of choice.

3. Go the extra mile .. drive home in the dark.

Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can.

Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get the

[PoorWordUsage] out of here and never come back.

"Class dismissed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I thought I unleased some awfully long posts from time to time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Had an 09'. Got rid of it. Also,  you could not keep the front end aligned.  Otherwise a very nice truck.
    • Helps when I comprehend what I read.  I actually just cut the handle off my tongue jack on my Yetti and welded on 3/4 nut too.  My M18 drill with 1,200 in-lbs (2704-20) and it has no problem raising or lowering the tongue.  Biggest thing I noticed was making sure my drill was on the #1 low speed setting.      As far as torque goes and harming your auger.  I think you are totally fine and shouldn't harm anything.  The max amount that these K-Drills and Clam plates are drilling these days with the big drills are 8".  Most sized augers these days have no problem turning a 10" auger which is nearly twice as large of an area than an 8" auger.  Being 2 strokes can normally operate in any orientation without being damaged the only concern I would have would be your gears and any shifting of grease inside operating the auger head on its side under load.    They say Ions will do 10" holes but after I talked to their customer service reps about it, I wouldn't trust an Ion with a 10" more than I do a wet fart.  Just the fact that they don't even sell a 10" package indicates there could possibly be issues with torque and reliability when operating the 10" auger "accessory".  For now I'd just stick to your strike master going up and save your Ion any extra wear and tear.  Maybe even ask Santa for some electric jacks this Christmas
    • As the media begins to draw a pretty picture about the November jobs report, namely that unemployment has dropped to 4.6 percent, its lowest level in nine years, they are unlikely to tell you the other part of the story. The labor force participation rate continues to decline and is stuck at a rate we haven't seen since February 1978, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  It gets worse. Last month, we lost 4,000 manufacturing jobs, offering more damage to the already 301,000 we've lost since President Obama took office. - Town Hall   See for yourself.. U.S. Dept of Labor / BLS Date Viewer   Whaaa ???   OH, MY....  
    • I wouldn't do that for each one. I was wondering if you couldn't cut a winch down, or maybe just leave it as is, so you could attach a drill to the low speed post and tack weld/rig a socket or something for the other side and just hold it in your hand. It probably won't work because it sounds too easy. 
    • My, such big words!! Yer a talented liddle Smurf, aintcha? We might as well get to work doin' what we were accused of, munchkin!!! Like Carly Simon said, "no one does it better"....  
    • i,ve been falsey accused of inproprieties!!!!!!!!!!!
    • Ken W, I have that book too. Before the internet it was really tough to find info. about sausage making. I never had luck getting a tangy flavor using Fermento. The sausage was very good though.
    • Jacks work very smooth, fresh grease and by hand feels fine for the amount of weight.  I think for the winter we'll just use the gas auger up and the hand drill down.  I don't want to sink another penny into these darn jacks if I can help it, should be swapping out by next year.  I may look into the gear reduction but I feel like trying to throw one of them on each of the jacks could add another 100 that could go toward electric.  leech if you ever stumble on that video post the link so I can see what hes doing different.  Works great on the tongue when it can pivot on the wheels but when lifting the full weight of the house at the back two jack points it just doesnt cut it.
  • Our Sponsors