Pity Chrysler (was, The Dukes of Hazzard)

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
...
> They used Chrysler cars but not with the "blessing" of DC or their
> sponsorship. It appears the cars they used were privately owned.
>

Of course they were. Where else would they get 26 suitable cars for the
project?

Hairy wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>They used Chrysler cars but not with the "blessing" of DC or their
>>sponsorship. It appears the cars they used were privately owned.
>>
>
>
> Of course they were. Where else would they get 26 suitable cars for the
> project?

I'm sure Chrysler has a few tucked away for those special occasions.

On 26 Jul 2005 07:14:46 -0700, "Nay-Sayer" >
wrote:

>
>
>ZombyWoof wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:39:38 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>> > wrote:
>
>> While from a basic tenant point of view I agree with you, some people
>> also just need to get over themselves.
>
>And some other people need to take off the white sheets and cease the
>cross burning.....
>
>TNS

Does this still happen often?
-Rich

Around 7/26/2005 9:44 PM, RichA wrote:

> On 26 Jul 2005 07:14:46 -0700, "Nay-Sayer" >
> wrote:
>
>>ZombyWoof wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:39:38 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:
>>
>>>While from a basic tenant point of view I agree with you, some people
>>>also just need to get over themselves.
>>
>>And some other people need to take off the white sheets and cease the
>>cross burning.....
>>
>>TNS
>
>
> Does this still happen often?


More often than it should...


--
/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \
| My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang |
| RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm |
\ Mail for secure reply information /

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:15:47 -0700, Garth Almgren >
wrote:

>Around 7/26/2005 9:44 PM, RichA wrote:
>
>> On 26 Jul 2005 07:14:46 -0700, "Nay-Sayer" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>ZombyWoof wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:39:38 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>While from a basic tenant point of view I agree with you, some people
>>>>also just need to get over themselves.
>>>
>>>And some other people need to take off the white sheets and cease the
>>>cross burning.....
>>>
>>>TNS
>>
>>
>> Does this still happen often?
>
>
>More often than it should...

Really? Any media sources for it? I'd have thought this
kind of thing would show up on nationwide media if it actually
happened today.

RichA wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2005 07:14:46 -0700, "Nay-Sayer" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>ZombyWoof wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:39:38 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:
>>
>>>While from a basic tenant point of view I agree with you, some people
>>>also just need to get over themselves.
>>
>>And some other people need to take off the white sheets and cease the
>>cross burning.....
>>
>>TNS
>
>
> Does this still happen often?

IMO, racially motivated crimes are equal opportunity. It is practiced
by whites on blacks, blacks on whites, hispanic on black etc. It really
isn't as lopsided as it was 30+ years ago.

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
...
> ZombyWoof wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:39:38 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>>They refuse to allow their cars to be used in the "Dukes of Hazzard"
>>>>movie because of the Confederate flag and that movie will probably do
>>>>massive box office. But, they give the producers of "The Island"
>>>>an typical, politically-correct Hollywood movie a huge number of their
>>>>cars and it's horribly bombing.
>>>>Is this some kind of divine message to toadying international
>>>>corporations that maybe they should attempt to control everything that
>>>>people can do or think?
>>>
>>>Why should they let someone take their products and slap a symbol on it
>>>that offends a rather large slice of the public? I'm white, live in
>>>Virginia, politically conservative (many liberals think that makes me
>>>racist) and even I can see why many people are offended by the
>>>Confederate flag - just like Jewish people are offended by the Swastika.
>>>It is a symbol that is strongly connected to the legitimization of
>>>slavery. I fail to see how it can be spun into anything else. Many say
>>>it is a symbol of southern pride but I just don't get it. Maybe someone
>>>here can explain it for me.
>>>
>>>IMO, DC is smart to not allow their products to be used in a way that is
>>>offense to many people. It's good business and, IMO, the right thing to
>>>do.
>>>
>>
>> While from a basic tenant point of view I agree with you, some people
>> also just need to get over themselves. There isn't a person alive
>> today that had anything to do with or was impacted buy the institution
>> of slavery or the civil war. This is quite unlike the remaining
>> survivors of the holocaust who are still alive and do remember the
>> horror that was the Nazis.
>
> I think many in the South need to get over a few things too. They lost
> the Civil War. I just don't understand the drive of some to display the
> Confederate flag. What exactly does it mean to them? I do think they
> should have the right to display it.
>

Slavery has been over in this country since 1865, so I think that blacks
need to get over it.

Focus on slavery going on in the world today.

Word!

"Ritz" > wrote in message ...
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>Plus, I don't see this picture doing all that well anyway. It is another
>>poor remake of a marginal TV show.
>>
>> But this is just my opinion.
>
>
> Marginal? You're being VERY kind. 8-) If you put 2 thirteen year old
> boys together and asked them to write scripts each week, that approximates
> the quality of the original series. It's right up there (down there?)
> with Three's Company....
>
> Cheers,

Yet it lasted for 5 years....

Bender Bending Rodriquez wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>ZombyWoof wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:39:38 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They refuse to allow their cars to be used in the "Dukes of Hazzard"
>>>>>movie because of the Confederate flag and that movie will probably do
>>>>>massive box office. But, they give the producers of "The Island"
>>>>>an typical, politically-correct Hollywood movie a huge number of their
>>>>>cars and it's horribly bombing.
>>>>>Is this some kind of divine message to toadying international
>>>>>corporations that maybe they should attempt to control everything that
>>>>>people can do or think?
>>>>
>>>>Why should they let someone take their products and slap a symbol on it
>>>>that offends a rather large slice of the public? I'm white, live in
>>>>Virginia, politically conservative (many liberals think that makes me
>>>>racist) and even I can see why many people are offended by the
>>>>Confederate flag - just like Jewish people are offended by the Swastika.
>>>>It is a symbol that is strongly connected to the legitimization of
>>>>slavery. I fail to see how it can be spun into anything else. Many say
>>>>it is a symbol of southern pride but I just don't get it. Maybe someone
>>>>here can explain it for me.
>>>>
>>>>IMO, DC is smart to not allow their products to be used in a way that is
>>>>offense to many people. It's good business and, IMO, the right thing to
>>>>do.
>>>>
>>>
>>>While from a basic tenant point of view I agree with you, some people
>>>also just need to get over themselves. There isn't a person alive
>>>today that had anything to do with or was impacted buy the institution
>>>of slavery or the civil war. This is quite unlike the remaining
>>>survivors of the holocaust who are still alive and do remember the
>>>horror that was the Nazis.
>>
>>I think many in the South need to get over a few things too. They lost
>>the Civil War. I just don't understand the drive of some to display the
>>Confederate flag. What exactly does it mean to them? I do think they
>>should have the right to display it.
>>
>
>
> Slavery has been over in this country since 1865, so I think that blacks
> need to get over it.
>
> Focus on slavery going on in the world today.

What about people flying a Confederate flag? Should they get over it too?

IMO, BOTH sides need to move on. Blacks in Africa had other blacks as
slaves and they are the ones that delivered the slaves to the whites.
Both side's hands are dirty when it comes to Europeans, and by extension
Americans, use of Africans as slaves. Hell, native Americans were
slaughtered and enslaved in South America by the millions upon millions.
The fact is that at some point nearly every race has been persecuted,
enslaved, tortured or slaughtered. Likewise, every race has persecuted,
enslaved, tortured or slaughtered another race or in some cases even
their own.

Bender Bending Rodriquez wrote:
> "Ritz" > wrote in message ...
>
>>Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Plus, I don't see this picture doing all that well anyway. It is another
>>>poor remake of a marginal TV show.
>>>
>>>But this is just my opinion.
>>
>>
>>Marginal? You're being VERY kind. 8-) If you put 2 thirteen year old
>>boys together and asked them to write scripts each week, that approximates
>>the quality of the original series. It's right up there (down there?)
>>with Three's Company....
>>
>>Cheers,
>
>
> Yet it lasted for 5 years....



"Reality TV" is wildly popular too. It's still crap. If I didn't have
kids, the TV would only go on for DVDs and the news.