Sime Darby Auto ConneXion (SDAC), the sole distributor for Ford vehicles in Malaysia, announced their
Sime Darby Auto ConneXion (SDAC) is offering up some awesome ang pao money when you purchase a Ford Ranger
A heavily camouflaged Ford Ranger Raptor has been spotted in Thailand amidst testing.
Jim Hackett announced today that he is stepping down as CEO of Ford Motor Company, barely three years
Sime Darby Auto ConneXion (SDAC) is proud to present the smarter and feature packed new Ford Ranger XLT
What do you do if you own a Ford Everest but want yours to stand out from the rest?
Last week, we reported that Ford is working together with Volkswagen to develop the next-generation Ranger
May 2020, Sime Darby Auto Connexion (SDAC) is offering massive savings of up to RM 9,000 for their Ford
(Model | Gallery) The thinking mans Ford Ranger Raptor Same powertrain as the Ford Ranger Raptor, 213
Finally, the 2021 Ford Bronco has been unleashed to the world.
Ford has just unveiled the all-new, fourteenth-generation 2021 Ford F-150 in the US.Starting with the
In the lead-up to its 13-July launch, Ford has released information about the upcoming Bronco.
When Ford Performance unleashed the Ford Ranger Raptor, many were disappointed that the pick-up truck
Ford Malaysia has announced that all 19 units of the Ford Ranger Splash have been pre-booked ahead of
rsquo;s anyone with the capability to challenge Toyota’s supremacy in pick-up trucks, it’s Ford
(Model | Gallery)The Ford Ranger is a 4x4 pickup truck that made a global debut back in 2015.
However, Malaysia National Security Council (NSC) have just released clearer guidelines regarding the
will once again issue all permits.This comes after an announcement by the National Security Council (NSC
Sime Darby Auto ConneXion (SDAC), the sole distributor for Ford in Malaysia, continues to enhance its
Sime Darby Auto ConneXion (SDAC) introduces a quick update for the Ford Ranger XLT Plus variant.
** This article is the personal experience of a 2014 Ford Fiesta ST180 owner and does not necessarily
The all-new Ford Ranger continues its segment high in the third quarter of 2019 with an increase of 12%
Believe it or not, but Ford really does have a dedicated laboratory for studying and creating artificial
** This article is the personal experience of a 2017 Ford Ranger 2.2 XLT T6FL owner and does not necessarily
The sole distributor of Ford in Malaysia-Sime Darby Auto Connexion, introduced the Ford Ranger Wildtrak
The over-the-top Ford Ranger Raptor could be receiving a new colour in Malaysia later this year, as seen
Yesterday, Ford debuted the 2021 Ford Ranger Wildtrak facelift in Thailand and it looks, well the same
Sime Darby Auto ConneXion (SDAC) is offering attractive savings on selected Ford Ranger Raptor and Ford
Sime Darby Auto ConneXion (SDAC), the sole distributor for Ford in Malaysia, has announced a service
Ford Motor Company and Volkswagen AG signed agreements that expand their global alliance on 10 June 2020
ford nsc-ford nsc-✓ 2PCS Dynamic Clear Lens Led Front DRL Turn Signal Lights For Ford Mustang Amber+White Replace OE
ford nsc-✓ Xdcradio 12.1in Android 10.0 For Ford Ranger F250 Car Radio Automotivo Car Multimedia Player Auto
ford nsc-✓Car Radio For Ford Fiesta Mk7 2009 2010 2011 2017 Multimedia Android 9.0 Stereo GPS Navigation Ant
ford nsc-ford nsc-Ford Fiesta MK7 sekwencyjne kierunkowskazy w lusterkach [eng.sub]
ford nsc-✓ Exterior body cladding kits accessories For FORD RANGER 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2
ford nsc-ford nsc-Ford K(ut)a - 01.08.2016
ford nsc-✓ 2DIN Android Car Radio For Ford Fiesta 2009-2017 9 Multimedia Video Player Navigation GPS Car DVD
ford nsc-Morning Keynote with NSC Senior Director Christopher Ford
ford nsc-✓ For Ford Focus 3 2011-2019 Car Radio Multimedia Video Player Navigation GPS Support Rear CameraVo
ford nsc-✓ 2016-2020 Bonnet Guard Shields For Ford Ranger Wiltrak Raptor 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 T7 T8
Gary Sick is a Middle East expert and served on NSC under administrations of Ford, Carter and Reagan: https://t.co/9sGGZy2Tqd
Carl edwards aflac scheme Ford Fusion NSC 2012 now available to download at http://t.co/lca1Is5l
Matt Kenseth Nesn National Ford Fusion Nsc 2012 soon to be available at http://t.co/edtQYZGZ
LIVE ON @cspan 2 on June 2: our #ArmsControl17 conf. w/Chris Ford fr the NSC and UN High Rep @INakamitsu at 9am EST https://t.co/DhRsikdDE2
First time with my snapper Ford Hayes of @NAWarriors_FB & holder D’Anthony Ball of @NSC_Football and an All Star O Line at @MCAOFGA Senior Bowl Classic practice @FordHayes80 @DeAnthonyB1 @CarstarphenMJ @RecruitGeorgia @HKA_Tanalski @GeorgiaPrepMag @ps_nation_ @apsupdate https://t.co/zo4CUvmXc9
Ford Trio In Top 10 For NSC Race - Ford Racing: Team Ford Racing News: “We have really been fighting our Long John... http://bit.ly/cIGmrV
NSC's Ford politely declines to answer a whole lot of questions, including Iran, INF Treaty, MOX, because "under review." #Nukefest2017
Within hours of ‘75 Mayaguez incident reaching WH, Pres Ford convened the NSC to assess situation & weigh options. No NSC mtg for #Benghazi
Top 2 US officials here working #Syria as Geneva II talks get underway are #US envoy Robert Ford and NSC counselor Salman Ahmed.
NSC Director Ford's policy options for North Korea range from "warm hamburgers to war hammers" at #Nukefest2017 🍔 🔨
“Service guarantees citizenship…” Donald Trump has made ,his, reasons for a “,US Space Force,” very clear: “When it comes to defending America it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space. Our destiny beyond the Earth is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security.” —,Trump at the National Space Council, June 18, 2018., , Image Credit: ,Starship Troopers (1997),. Would you like to know more? This is the Trump administration’s third space directive announcement. The first was for NASA to focus on establishing a permanent presence on the moon; the second was to establish new, streamlined regulations for launch and reentry of commercial space vehicles; for the third, there’s a basic change in “space traffic” safety and data services—with responsibility for debris in orbit to be transferred from the Defense Department to the Commerce Department. The idea is to develop standards for “pre-launch risk, orbital collision assessments” and “orbital debris mitigation guidelines” with an open data repository for commercial and international sources separate from the Defense Department. Meanwhile in a separate stream of activity the House Armed Services Committee has been working on a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). , As part of the Act a new military service, the “Space Corps” is proposed for January 1, 2019; headed by the civilian Secretary of the Air Force, running “national security space programs” for which the Air Force is currently responsible. Every president has had a vision for the development of space. Eisenhower responded to Sputnik in 1957. Kennedy announced the “space race”. Johnson gave us the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, banning nuclear weapons in space and barring sovereignty claims on celestial bodies. Nixon agreed to the five year Apollo-Soyuz joint mission. Ford created the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Carter both restricted space weapons and committed to anti-satellite defense systems. Reagan went for the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). Both Bush’s and Clinton committed to a space station, a return to the moon and space development as a matter of national security with the Constellation program. Obama cancelled Constellation, focusing on a future rendezvous with an asteroid and a 2030s Mars mission; transferred supply of the ISS from space shuttles to Soyuz and then the first SpaceX Dragon capsules. In these latest policy announcements of Donald Trump’s, his headline friendly soundbites citing “American dominance” and “national security” seem at odds with Article IV of the international ,Treaty on Outer Space,, (1967): “States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.” —Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. What’s really happening is Trump pragmatism. Trump’s 2018 budget seeks to cancel four of NASA’s missions: The Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, Ocean Ecosystem satellite (,PACE,); the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 experiment (,OCO-3,); the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (,CLARREO,); and the Deep Space Climate Observatory (,DSCOVR,). "Each agency will continue to have their own budgets for space traffic management. In general, NASA will be doing supporting research, Defense will be doing more work related to national security, Transportation will be streamlining its licensing processes, and Commerce will be putting more resources into public and industry interfaces." —Scott Pace, executive secretary of the National Space Council. , In much the same way that the last few decades have seen defence development shift from government agencies to private contractors, Trump’s vision is to continue to remake NASA into an agency which subcontracts rocket building and space development to private companies. These policies continue the opening up of opportunities the previous admin encouraged for commercial/civil investors and entrepreneurs. , As for a “Space Force”? Donald Trump’s “Space Force” hasn’t yet been approved by a full committee. The new law would have to go through both legislative houses before finally being signed by the president. Image Credit: AP/Getty/Star Film Company/Photo Montage by Salon. There is a genuine perception in the House that the US’ long term strategic advantages in space are withering away. A separate military service replacing the Air Force’s Space Command might address this. There’s an opportunity for interesting headlines and soundbites. The US isn’t planning to mount a defense against alien invaders quite yet. , “What you're doing is so important, remember—economically, militarily, scientifically, in every way,” said the president. Trump’s last one-liner at the NSC meeting? “There's no place like space.”
The Chinese are adding their own carrier, area denial rockets and subs, and generally continuing their A2/AD intent. They do not appear to be showing power projection as a priority. They are focused in littoral spaces in the western Pacific. They have quiet subs and are building islands which are unsinkable aircraft carriers in the area around China. But they don’t seem to want to challenge for power projection. Russia is continuing to press the eastern Med with bases in Syria and now that Crimea and Sevastopol have been reunited with Russia, they will challenge America in the eastern Med. I expect them to challenge in the Arctic and Antarctic as well. They do not appear to have expanded the Pacific fleet. This said how much do we need 12 carriers? And how did we get to 12? The answer is quoted from this excellent article in the Naval Institute: Opinion: Get the Ford Carriers to the Fleet - USNI News The carrier force is below the mandate required by law. Our ships are going on deployments of ever increasing lengths, all longer than planned—as long as 10 months. Because of backlogs of ship maintenance, unplanned repairs are popping up with increasing frequency stretching out the ships’ repair periods. Training periods are now being cut by three-fourths of their planned time. Vital areas like the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf are being gapped of the presence of an aircraft carrier for the first time in decades. The Navy’s expected ability to surge three more carrier battle groups to a conflict will not be achievable by 2020 unless congressional budget uncertainty and sequestration cuts to readiness are fixed now. And finally, the newest aircraft carrier, USS ,Gerald R. Ford ,(CVN-78), will be kept from deploying for perhaps as long as four years for excessive testing. Because of the testing period, it will have a small impact on actual Navy presence. The bottom line is this: the Navy needs more carriers and ships, and they are needed in the Fleet soonest if the Navy is to meet the National Command Authority’s operational requirements. What drives the number of carriers needed? National Security Council, led by Paul Nitze, who later became the Secretary of the Navy, issued its famous ,NSC-68 directive in April 1950,, calling for a massive response from the free world against the communists’ aggressive actions. In response the Joint Chiefs set a 12-carrier force as its goal. Two months later, communist China invaded South Korea. ,The U.S. Navy responded by bringing back 10 mothballed ,Essex, carriers that increased the force to 18 by the time of the cease-fire. Afterward, in 1953, ,the Joint Chiefs aimed for 15 carriers,, a goal it maintained until 2000. But 15 carriers are very expensive to maintain. In 1992 budget pressures forced the U.S. Navy to decrease the force from 15 to 12 by 1998. In 2006 more financial constraints threatened to further reduce the number. Congress responded by putting a floor under the carrier force at 12, which was codified into law in U.S. Code Title 10, Section 6052. However, USS ,John F., ,Kennedy ,(CV-67), which was expected to stay in service until 2018, retired in 2007. Faced with continuing budgetary woes and no alternative, Congress cut the number to 11 in 2007. Then in 2013 USS ,Enterprise ,(CVN-65) retired after 52 years of service. Although the ,Ford, should have replaced her to maintain the force at 11, the Department of Defense’s transformational changes to the carrier program delayed her delivery until 2016, so Congress waived the requirement of 11 reducing the force to 10 until the ,Ford, enters the fleet. The net effect is seen in deployments. At his recent confirmation hearing to become Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson confirmed that the Navy would not have a carrier patrolling the Persian Gulf for several months later this year, and that the Navy can only surge one carrier strike group to a crisis now. To Senator Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) point that unless congressional budget uncertainty and sequestrations cuts to readiness are corrected now, the Navy wouldn’t be able to restore the surge capability back to the expected three strike groups by 2020, ,Admiral Richardson reluctantly agreed,. We are failing with a force of 10 carriers. 11 are required by law, but having 12 would be much better. With 12, we have the margin to surge if there is a need. With 12, we have normal training rotations. With 12, we are able to provide for power projection and national command requirements as stipulated in law. We will not get to 12 under Sequester. So right now, we are in an operational deficit that will not be rectified until we are back at full strength.
It is August 8, 2018. Doug Ford has been premier of Ontario for a couple months now. Please keep in mind that Ontarians do not elect a premier, but we elect a local member of provincial parliament (mpp). The leader of the party that wins the most seats becomes premier (even if he/she doesn’t win in their own riding). This was Doug Ford of the Progressive Conservative (PC) party, which won a majority of seats, meaning they have 100% of the power as a party to pass pretty much any law they like (within the bounds of federal law and the constitution). It is also important for our American neighbours to keep in mind that the PCs are not equivalent to the Republicans. They may have a lot of similarities but the Republicans would be an extremist version of the PCs. That being said, I do see a lot of concerning opinions from a lot of PC supporters that would make the party more extremist, but this has had a fairly small effect on actual policy (not zero effect, but also not “the sky is falling” sized effect). I personally did not vote for the PC candidate in my riding and that candidate did not win, nor was he expected to. It was not a surprise that Doug Ford became premier. A lot of people were tired of perceived scandals and corruption of the former leadership (the Liberal party) and were not prepared for an NDP leader who would arguably plunge the province into further debt. The reason I used the word “perceived” in the previous sentence is that the vast majority of people I spoke with could not actually tell me a single scandal or example of corruption. I think a lot of people will simply see a government do something they don’t like and call it a scandal or corruption. These are buzzwords to get people pissed off. I’m not saying that the previous government was all sunshine and lollipops, but I do think a lot of the hate was misguided. At the end of the day a lot of voters decided that they wanted someone else to lead, which is not unreasonable. What was a surprise was how much support the PCs received for the simple virtue of not being the Liberals. They didn’t even have a real platform for this election, but would talk about “finding efficiencies” and firing some people. This was a typical, paraphrased interview: PC candidate: We’ll put money back in your pockets. Reporter: How? PC candidate: Don’t worry about that. My perspective, as well as that of many others, is that we had to choose which turd to polish. For me personally it will likely make very little difference in my life who the premier is; none of them will destroy our public healthcare or education, none of them will change the price of electricity or gas so substantially as to alter the way I live my life, none of them will try to tell me that I can’t be married to my wife or that my wife can’t have access to particular types of healthcare, none of them will bankrupt me or make me wealthy. Now that Doug is premier I find myself unhappily, yet always laughing, shaking my head a lot and thinking, “not a surprise you would do that.” Consider the following examples, with my scale of how important it is to me going from 0 (don’t care, even a little) to 10 (the single most important thing I’ve ever cared about): Marijuana legalization,: Weed will be legal in Canada beginning on October 17, 2018. This is a federal matter so Doug Ford can do nothing about this. The provinces are allowed to regulate as they see fit, similar to how they regulate alcohol and tobacco. The Liberal government had a plan to make weed for sale in something equivalent to and operated by the LCBO, which is the primary source in Ontario for liquor and wine. It is a crown corporation. Doug and the PCs want weed to be available pretty much anywhere that wants to sell it, similar to cigarettes. I am not a fan of this plan as I feel that the sale of weed needs more control than that, at least for a little while until the consequences are better understood. Overall, I give this a score of 4; it will barely impact my life if I don’t want it to. Guaranteed minimum income test project,: If you are not familiar, this is basically a test that was being done in a few Ontario regions with several thousand people wherein they would be given money from the government to provide them a minimum income of, I think, $18000 per year. The idea was to see what effect this would have on these people’s lives and on the communities. In essence, to answer the question, “what are the positives and negatives of a guaranteed minimum income?” The project was to last 3 years. Doug cancelled it, only 1 year in. Apparently he had promised that he wasn’t going to cancel it. I guess he lied. Shocking. People have grown dependent on this additional income, so this will definitely hurt them. I am not one of them. I like that this program was being tested, but I do not like the way it was or will potential be implemented. My hope is that this test would be just the beginning, but I suspect it will be a very long time before we see the kind of program that I could strongly support. I feel bad for the people who won’t be getting this now, but it’s hard for me to really be emotionally invested in it. I score this a 5. Electric vehicle incentive program,: This is a program which gives a grant to anyone who purchases an electric or hybrid vehicle. The maximum amount was around $12000 I think, which is substantial. They cancelled this program. No surprise there. I am leaning towards purchasing an electric vehicle in the next 2–5 years, but without this grant it will be much more difficult financially. I also feel that society needs to be moving away from fossil fuels and into more renewable, cleaner energy sources. This cancellation is antithetical to opinion. I give this a score of 6. Sex-ed curriculum regression,: A new sex-ed curriculum (NSC) began getting taught in about 2015. The previous curriculum was made in 1998, before the internet was widespread to households, before facebook (or most social media, for that matter) existed, before texting, before everyone had a cell phone. The NSC has a strong focus on bullying, how everyone is different, how LGBTQ is perfectly normal, what constitutes sexual abuse, treating your body as your own, and consent. The idea was to begin teaching the kids information as early as grade 1, starting with proper names of body parts, so biology. My 4-year-old already knows that he and I have a penis, his sisters and mother have vaginas, babies grow inside mom’s uterus, and mom feeds babies with milk that comes out of her nipples. He knows that some people have two moms or two dads. He also knows that he never has to hug or kiss anybody that he doesn’t want to and that when someone says “stop” you stop touching, tickling, grabbing, or whatever (he’s not perfect at this, but he’s only 4, so I don’t expect him to be, ,yet,)., ,Doug has already, as one of his first acts as premier, regressed the curriculum back to the 1998 model. This was to pander to a very small minority (many religious, but not all) that don’t want their children to learn about modern sexuality topics that agreed to vote for him if he scrapped the NSC. This was an absolutely appalling decision (but not a surprising one) that I will do everything in my power (which is limited) to reverse. This receives a score of 9. He is doing our society no favours with this decision. That being said, my children ,will, learn all these topics from my wife and I. Childcare,: This is one topic which was actually touched upon during the campaign. Each of the major parties had an idea of something to help families with the cost of daycare, and since I have 3 children, the oldest of which is 4, this is clearly something I care a lot about. The plan Doug was promoting was to give a rebate to families that used daycare services. The other parties were talking more about reducing the cost of daycare by subsidizing the providers. I don’t remember all the details of any of the plans, I just remember thinking that Doug’s plan was probably the one that would benefit my family the most (this was a genuine surprise), but also the one that would be easiest to abuse (not a surprise). He promised the new program would start in 2019, so I’ll reserve judgement until then, but I would be pleasantly surprised if they actually do it and it works well, I’m just not counting on it. I score this an 8. So, what do I think about electing Doug Ford, two months after he was elected. I think that the next four years, politically, will have a lot of very depressing moments, but not surprising ones. I think Ontario will be neither substantially better nor worse off when it’s finished. I do worry somewhat for healthcare and education, but if these get hurt too badly, Doug will be punished by the electorate. This is what happens in Canada, we punish politicians who piss us off. On another note, I just want to bring up something I find funny. Doug Ford was a city councilor in Toronto for a number of years. His late brother, Rob, was the mayor for four of those years. Doug ran for mayor after Rob and lost to John Tory. John Tory was the leader of the Ontario PC party and failed to become premier a number of years ago. Now, Doug is premier. I just find that funny. Doug is also trying to cripple the representation of citizens in Toronto by forcing the city council to reduce the number of seats. I assume this is some sort of bizarre revenge Doug is taking against them for never taking him and Rob seriously. Rob Ford did not deserve to be taken seriously as a politician, the man was a joke as far as I’m concerned. Original Question: What do Canadians think about electing Doug Ford?
It’s actually very simple: Because they don’t. Please provide your sources… But I’m not holding my breath, because you won’t be able to do so. Airbags simply don’t “kill more people than they save”. That’s tinfoil hat stuff. I’m a two-time airbag deployment survivor, and at least one time I probably wouldn’t be here, writing this, if it hadn’t been for the safety features of that little rented Ford Fiesta I totally reduced to a pile of individual parts. The airbag was very unpleasant, but it saved me from far heavier injuries. Yes, airbags can be dangerous. People have been killed tampering with them, or by defective airbags deploying late, or spontaneously. But this number is in absolutely no relation to the number of people saved. You’re very likely from the US, so here’s a little info: ,Air Bag Safety | DMV.ORG The ,National Safety Council (NSC), estimates air bags saved more than 1,040 lives in 1998. However, there were almost 100 children killed by air bags during the same year. ,These deaths were because of children sitting in the front seat, being improperly fastened by seat belts, or not wearing seat belts at all. (bold text mine). It’s old info, but we’re looking at a save vs kill ratio of ca. 10:1, with that “1” being because children were not secured correctly or otherwise not safely placed in the vehicle. So totally evitable. Question: ,Why do cars have airbags if they kill more people than they save?
I know for some specific cars it can be important. I believe another example is the Ford Puma. When it first appeared, it looked amazing. http://www.rac.co.uk/drive/car-r... Ford Puma | Wikiwand The Puma was available with four engine options: 1.4-litre (1997-2000), 1.6-litre (2000-2001), 1.7-litre VCT, and the Tickford-tuned 1.7-litre VCT which was only used in the Ford Racing Puma, each of which used ,Ford's 16-v Sigma engines, branded as ,Zetec,-,SE,. Additionally, the 1.7-litre engines used ,Nikasil, cylinder plating, which required a specific grade of ,oil, (5W30 semisynthetic) to minimise mechanical wear. Nikasil | Wikiwand The coating was further developed by Millennium Technologies founders in the United States in the late 1990s (under the trade name of "Nickel Silicone Carbide or NSC"), as a replacement for hard-chrome plated cylinder bores for Mercury Marine Racing, Kohler Engines, and as a repair replacement for factory-chromed snowmobiles, dirt bikes, ATVs, watercraft and automotive V8 liners/bores. Nikasil was very popular in the 1990s. It was used by companies such as ,Audi,, ,BMW,,,Ferrari,, ,Jaguar, and ,Moto Guzzi, in their new engine families. However, the ,sulfur,found in much of the world's low-quality gasoline caused some Nikasil cylinders to break down over time, causing costly engine failures. Suzuki currently uses a race-proven nickel phosphorus-silicon-carbid e proprietary coating trademarked SCEM (Suzuki Composite Electro-chemical Material) to maximize cylinder size and improve heat dissipation, e.g., on the engine of the ,Suzuki TL1000S,,,V-Strom 650,,,TU250X,, ,Hayabusa, and the ,GSX-R, series motorcycles. I had noticed all the different oils in Halfords. I even managed to buy some Mercedes oil at a discounted price on one occasion. If I was buying oil, I would try to buy oil specific to my car. I would be very surprised if the Auto Lube stations sell every type of oil. I believe ATS use Shell Helix for instance. On the other hand, there will be occasions when I made wish to use up some oil that is not specific to my car. I have just bought an MOT failure, a 2001 Subaru Forester. I don’t know whether it is worth spending any money on. The main problem is rust, but when I had a look, I realised that the previous owner had not replaced the oil which was rather low. I would not dream of using the oil pictured below: Comma CLA20505L 5L 20W/50 Classic Motor Oil Castrol Classic XL 20W/50 - Engine Oil - 4.55 Litre/1 Gallon Castrol Classic XL 20W/50 - Engine Oil - 4.55 Litre/1 Gallon Subaru Forester (1997 - 2002) Subaru Forester 1997 - Car Review
It has never happened. From 1800 to 1948, Vice Presidents played a small role in White House operations unless the President passed away during their term. Without exception they played a lesser role than major Cabinet Secretaries. Thomas Marshall was able to chair a few Cabinet meetings while Woodrow Wilson was in Europe, but was otherwise not a significant administration player. The atomic suitcase changed that, to a degree. And the happenstance of an experienced Senator of advanced age rising to VP during Truman's second term, and his willingness to allow him a greater role. But no VP reached the degree you are talking about, as far as able historians have found out. Vice Presidents since Alben Barkley (1949-1953) have had more power in the administration than earlier VPs, but never more than the President. Barkley was over 70 and an experienced Washington player. He could not be put in a back room, nor did Truman want him there. He got the first VP seal, first EOB office, and the moniker 'Veep' He lobbied the hill, spoke for the administration while Truman focused on Korea, and campaigned for 1950 Democratic candidates. He was the first to sit in NSC meetings, he was the first to sit in Cabinet meetings on a regular basis. Richard Nixon gained from Barkley's precedents - allowed in the same meetings. When Eisenhower was ill in 1953, Nixon took over meetings - but always preserved Eisenhower's interests. Walter Mondale was very useful in the Carter administration working with the Senate, among other jobs. Al Gore, especially in the first term played a similar role in the Senate, feeling Senators out and casting a tie-breaking vote on Clinton's first budget. He also did the 'weekly lunch' thing with Clinton. Joe Biden has been equally useful in assessing Senatorial opinion (including Senior Republicans) and helping to push healthcare reform. No one has reached over the President in a significant way. I would agree with many assessments that Cheney was the most powerful vice President. There was a lot of talk in the administration of George W. Bush about how powerful Dick Cheney was, and of course this famous Saturday Night Live humor. Cheney was an old Washington hand by 2001, an in-fighter who knew how to have the 'meetings before the meetings' that would dictate policy. Certainly Scott McClellan's memoirs pinned a lot of blame at the VPs door and confirmed impressions that he was a powerful figure and clearing some decisions. Ron Suskind's, The One Percent Doctrine, has Cheney dictating the most important national security policies. I think it's more possible that from 2001 to 2009, President and VP were simply two people that largely agreed with one another, creating an impression that dark, sinister influence existed. Bob Woodward's ,War Within, shows Cheney losing a few battles and a 2nd term GWB starting to branch out more. There are also some known facts. - George W. Bush, per hi,s Decision Points,, considered dropping Cheney from the Ticket in 2004, in lieu of Bill Frist and Cheney offered this. GWB made the decision to keep him. - Cheney disagreed with the auto bailout and would have been more conservative than GWB's handling of the economic crisis. - Bush did not pardon Scooter Libby as Cheney would have wanted ,Cheney admits to disagreement with Bush over presidential pardon -,Cheney likely if he was in the Oval would have been more aggressive in the use of force. Cheney, Bush Disagreed Over Striking Iran, . I think that history will flesh some of this out. And no matter how influential a VP is, the fact is there is and will be one man/woman in the Oval. Only one person gets the (y/n). One final note. A Vice President could be more ,popular, than a President, thus a larger figure at the news. An example of this is Gerald Ford between 1973 until his assumption of the Presidency in 1974. However, given the Watergate situation, Ford spent most of the time out of Washington and was reluctant to intervene on major policies for Nixon. This is even fairly rare, and not sure it's happened since.
How would you rank the US Presidents who attained office through the death/resignation of the President? Who was the best/worst: Tyler, Fillmore, A Johnson, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, LBJ, or Ford? A2A, thanks. For the sake of this list I’m going to focus on their accomplishments rather than their shortcoming as I’m sure there will be many more comments to that effect. The rankings shown below are based on a 2015 poll administered by the ,American Political Science Association,. Ranked 4th overall by historians - Theodore Roosevelt, - One of the most important legacies Teddy Roosevelt has as both an American and President is the fact that he was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in Cuba, the country’s highest award for gallantry on the battlefield during times of armed conflict. Less than one half of 1 percent of all military member ,ever, in our country’s history have received the MOH. Then there’s the fact that he was our youngest President ever at age 42. He averted a national emergency by helping to solve the 1902 coal strike, reduced the monopolistic control over railroads as well as the “Big 6 Beef Trust” which reduced meat prices, and the passage of the Meat Inspection Act. He is also responsible for getting the Pure Food and Drug Act passed in 1906. Roosevelt is also responsible for the facilitation of the Panama Canal’s finish. Perhaps his biggest legacy has to do with wildlife and wilderness conservation with creation of the National Park Service with the creation of 5 national parks, 51 bird reserves and 150 national forests. He set more land aside for conservation than all his predecessors combined. Finally, he was also the only U.S. President, until Barack Obama, to win the Nobel Peace Prize. That’s a pretty amazing list for any President, and perhaps some of the reasons he’s immortalized on Mt. Rushmore. Ranked 6th - Harry S. Truman, - Truman was a reluctant President, he never wanted to have the job in the first place, was a compromise choice for Vice President, and only attained the highest office because Franklin Roosevelt died after only 82 days into his 4th term. Yet Truman’s legacy is also huge, first and foremost due to the time he attained the position during the final third of WW2. Perhaps his biggest legacy is the Truman Doctrine, which was responsible for stopping the spread of communism into Greece and Turkey in 1947. The success of the program changed the course of American foreign policy into a position of Soviet containment from one of detente. Then there’s the implementation of the Marshall Plan which saw the rebuilding of Europe during the post-war years, which saw the fastest period period of European growth in history, the Berlin airlift, the formation of NATO and the United Nations, the establishment of the NSC, CIA and NSA. Truman was also responsible for the U.S. military finally being integrated in 1947–8. During his term the Federal Housing Administration helped with urban redevelopment and put more people into home ownership than ever before. And finally, in 1948, passage of the Displaced Persons Act allowed 200,000 refugees from Europe and 17,000 orphaned children into the country for resettlement (you wouldn’t see that today!). Most historians rate Truman as one of the greatest Presidents in our history. Ranked 13th - Lyndon B. Johnson, - Johnson was one who never hid his ambition to be President, he just didn’t want to get it by succeeding Kennedy after his assisination. Johnson is responsible for the continuation of Kennedy’s civil rights drive, and even went further that Kennedy ever would have, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was the most sweeping legislation since Reconstruction after the Civil War. During his term there was also passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, huge tax cuts and reduced unemployment nationwide, the creation of social welfare programs to help the poor, and an expanded Federal role in schooling that made education a national priority. While many people remember Johnson primarily for his oversight of the Vietnam war during his term, his greatest impact was actually the war on poverty and illiteracy in this country with his Great Society initiatives. Ranked 26th - Gerald Ford, - The image many people have of Gerald Ford is of a bumbling oaf wh should never have been President. The truth, however, is more complicated and Ford actually ranks in the middle of the presidential pack. The biggest contribution, for better or worse, that Ford made was his pardon of former President Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal. This action likely cost him the Presidency to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Former Senator Ted Kennedy was a vocal critic of Ford’s action in 1974, but stated in 2001 that: “Unlike many of us at the time, President Ford recognized that the nation had to move forward, and could not do so if there was a continuing effort to prosecute former President Nixon. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us.” Ranked 28th -Chester A. Arthur - ,Arthur is another President that few people really know anything about other that he came to office after James Garfield’s death. In fact, most politicians and followers of the time though he would be a huge failure given his poor reputation as part of the New York political machine. However, he bucked the system and set up rules that Federal employees had to be hired for their qualifications and not for the connections they had. Arthur also favored a civil rights act, which many of his contemporaries did not. To the shock of many, he did surprisingly well in office. Ranked 30th - Calvin Coolidge - ,Coolidge was nicknamed “Silent Cal” for his soft-spoken nature and steadfast resolve. He was responsible for cleaning up rampant corruption in the government and bringing stability in a time of rapid growth. He was also very pro-business and pushed through large tax cuts and favored limited government spending. However, some of his laissez-faire policies helped contributed to the onset of the Great Depression. Ranked 37th - John Tyler, - Known during his time as “His Accidency”, Tyler was the first Vice President to gain the position due to the death of his predecessor while in office. Perhaps his biggest achievement while in office was the annexation of Texas in 1845. Aside from that, his positive claims to fame include the Pre-Emption Act, which allowed people to purchase 160 acres of Western Federal land for settlement, the settling of the Maine-Canada boundary with the British, and the Treaty of Wanghia with China that opened up Asian ports to the United States for the first time. Ranked 39th - Millard Fillmore -, Fillmore personally, ,opposed slavery, but saw compromise as the only way to keep the Union together prior to the Civil War, so he vigorously enforced the Fugitive Slave Act. This alienated many even in his own party and denied him reelection in 1852. Fillmore saw enactment of The Compromise of 1850, which saw California admitted to the Union as a non-slave state, the abolition of slavery in washington, D.C., and the establishment of New Mexico as a territory to counterbalance California’s admission. He favored Federal support of building a transcontinental railroad, reestablished diplomatic ties with Mexico, and invoked the Monroe Doctrine when France tried to interfere with the independence of Hawaii in 1851, which ironically, was later annexed by the U.S. Ranked 41st - Andrew Johnson, - Unfortunately there’s not a lot of good to say about Andrew Johnson, so this will be short. In 1865, he granted amnesty to all Confederates that took a loyalty oath to the Union and the restored United States. In 1867, Secretary of State William H. Seward is authorized to purchase Alaska from Russia for the then huge sum of $7.2 million in what becomes known as “Seward's folly.” That’s it. If you want the bad, and there’s a lot, read another post. Sources: 10 Major Accomplishments of Theodore Roosevelt 10 Major Accomplishments of Harry S. Truman 10 Major Accomplishments of Lyndon B. Johnson Accomplishments of Recent Presidents Worth Remembering Chester A. Arthur's Presidency Was a Colossal Accident...And a Huge Success - History Calvin Coolidge John Tyler Millard Fillmore Andrew Johnson - Key Events | Miller Center Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
The agency is a total flop. There are none unclassified in my sphere I can tell but it’s a total flop. DEA or SWAT and DEA might be a better fit for you. I don’t know what you want. SEAL Team Six Founders had to found the DEA. Why? Ford Regan Nixon Bush Administrations listened to Nazi and there had to be something to combat shadow stupidity. Also because of the flop of a CIA NSA NSC we have and out of control think tanks and lobbyists which all need a budget staff wack job. Flops. Thanks
Roksana Parvin Yasmin wants an answer to: Which president was formerly a director of the CIA? F Roksana Parvin Yasmin and 1 other person are looking for an answer to: Does the president have to give a State of the Union Address? A Roksana Parvin Yasmin wants an answer to: Which US president won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002? D Roksana Parvin Yasmin wants an answer to: What did the president say in the State of Union Address? C Roksana Parvin Yasmin wants an answer to: What did the National Security Council argue in NSC 68? G Roksana Parvin Yasmin wants an answer to: Who is the only unelected president in US history? E Choose From These Answers A Yes B No C fellow citizens D Carter E Ford F Bush G to build nukes or not to build nukes - no question about it. H All the above I None of the above J Both A and B
Lawyers ask a question that should be asked more often on Quora: c,ui bono? ,(who benefits?) Why would this to be the advantage of the United States?