Pity Chrysler (was, The Dukes of Hazzard)

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:42:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

>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.
>
You Pc-Incorrect Heritic you!
--

Please Don't Steal - The Government Hates Competition

ZombyWoof
(take the dogs when replying via e-mail)

ZombyWoof wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:42:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>
>
> You Pc-Incorrect Heritic you!

The only thing "PC" about me is what I'm using to post this response.

Well, as I recall, it was REALLY lopsided 30+ years ago.

"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> 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.


They had multiple cross burnings in Durham, NC earlier this year.

http://rdu.news14.com/content/headli...=69773&SecID=2
http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2...ion-about.html
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/col...68-618807.html

Ed

Nay-Sayer wrote:
> Well, as I recall, it was REALLY lopsided 30+ years ago.
>

Thirty plus years ago I was a pimply faced teenager growing up in a very
small Midwestern town so I don't recall much of anything. We had less
than 10 black students in our entire school system and they were treated
just like everyone else. A person's race was never given much thought
among us.

I've been lurking for quite a while, and I think I have even posted before. I'd like to help you understand this part. I've been a civil war buff since the mid '80s, and the biggest problem with the flag is that the post 60s era has misconstrued the facts to suit them. In the movie "Gods and Generals" there is a scene that hit me when I saw it, and that is when a character reads in a northern news paper that the emancipation proclemation had been signed by the President. The character's rationalization of that action was that the southerner's spirit would be broken by having the institution broken down in such a way.

The point that seems to be missed by EVERYONE since the generation after the war was over is that the war was fought to protect..........The State's rights to determine it's own laws and regulations.

This fight still goes on today, in that most of us are now beholden to the EPA to allow our highway taxes to be returned to be used to benefit our own state roadways, but only if the state agrees to be held to the emission standards arbitrarily handed to them from the big central government. Here in SW Pennsylvania, the air quality as measured by the EPA test sites on the western border of the state is 'not in attainment' with the standards for our region, so we get to have more stringent emission tests. Since the air coming into the sites doesn't pass, exactly what can be done here to make it better? Shouldn't the EPA be forcing these tests on the areas that produce the air we can't meet attainment with?
The new emission test junk science farce is that diesel engines are now terrible polluters, but for the past 20 years weren't? For example it is now a "crime" complete with fines, to idle a school bus for more than 5 minutes, but the transit busses the local government agencies support are exempt? They routinely sit for up to 45 minutes during driver switches while at idle to keep the A/C or heat working. But that doesn't cause any pollution.
While we're at it, lets return to High School Chemistry class. What makes a molecule of ozone? 3 atoms of oxygen. Remember that any other atoms added into this substance makes a different chemical, not ozone. can this compound have a variable molecular weight? by definition, NO. Why do we have too much ground level ozone and not enough atmospheric ozone? Because the ground level ozone is heavier than air, the same air that is lighter than the other ozone.........according to the strong central government.

That is the same government that now advocates the taking of private property by government, and using it for different private enterprises. Not public use anymore, PRIVATE use....as in government agencies forcing you off your land so that I can build on it and bring more revenue to the local officials than they would have made from you. The founders of our country set up the Federal Government with specific duties. The main reason for the central government was to protect the borders of our nation from invasions. Since the 1860's, there has been a shift to the present day, where we can't protect our borders (those that do are called anything except patriots) and the Central powers tell the states what they will do next.

In short, the Civil War was fought over the right of an individual State to decide it's own laws, and one of the laws in question pertained to slavery. To declare otherwise is simply a twist of the facts. Similar in effect to the way that Malcom X's change in beliefs near the end of his life never seems to be acurately reported, but there are a lot of "X" shirts worn near where I live.

Also, the Stars 'n Bars was never the flag of the CSA. It was a battle flag, used as such. As a pair of shirts I saw state.........
"If this flag offends you, you need a history lesson." and
"You wear your X and I'll wear mine".

--
ERIC GIRONDA
"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message ...
RichA wrote:

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.

The Swastika was an official part of the NAZI uniform, country and race.
Something else you won't hear in schools is that the NAZI party was Socialist....

not 'right wing', not 'conservative', etc. The Socialist party, like the Communist party have quite a bit in common with the American Democratic party, but not so much the other American Political group......

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.

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:

> Nay-Sayer wrote:
>> Well, as I recall, it was REALLY lopsided 30+ years ago.
>>
>
> Thirty plus years ago I was a pimply faced teenager growing up in a
> very small Midwestern town so I don't recall much of anything. We
> had less than 10 black students in our entire school system and they
> were treated just like everyone else. A person's race was never
> given much thought among us.

During my junior and senior years in high school ('69-'71) we went
through race riots on campus and in town. Talk about getting an
education in life real quick..

Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Nay-Sayer wrote:
>>
>>>Well, as I recall, it was REALLY lopsided 30+ years ago.
>>>
>>
>>Thirty plus years ago I was a pimply faced teenager growing up in a
>>very small Midwestern town so I don't recall much of anything. We
>>had less than 10 black students in our entire school system and they
>>were treated just like everyone else. A person's race was never
>>given much thought among us.
>
>
> During my junior and senior years in high school ('69-'71) we went
> through race riots on campus and in town. Talk about getting an
> education in life real quick..

I guess this was one of the benefits of growing up in small town
America. When I graduated there was fewer than 400 people in the entire
high school (grades 9-12) and I went to the largest high school in the
county! One school had just over 100 students and that was for grades 1
through 12. My school was the only one that could field a football
team. I consider myself lucky that I grew up in a small community.

The kids that live around me here in the Washington, DC area are much
more jaded than my nieces and nephews growing up in my home town. Back
home they get to be care free kids much longer.

Eric G wrote:
> I've been lurking for quite a while, and I think I have even posted
> before. I'd like to help you understand this part. I've been a civil
> war buff since the mid '80s, and the biggest problem with the flag is
> that the post 60s era has misconstrued the facts to suit them. In the
> movie "Gods and Generals" there is a scene that hit me when I saw it,
> and that is when a character reads in a northern news paper that the
> emancipation proclemation had been signed by the President. The
> character's rationalization of that action was that the southerner's
> spirit would be broken by having the institution broken down in such a
> way.
>
> The point that seems to be missed by EVERYONE since the generation after
> the war was over is that the war was fought to protect..........The
> State's rights to determine it's own laws and regulations.

It really was a war regarding economics of owning slaves in the South.
That being said it doesn't make the South right in its cause. Are you
saying a State should have the right to determine that other races can
be enslaved? I can't buy that as being justified as a state's right.
Under this logic any state could pass a law to legalize slavery and the
Federal Government and the rest of the States would let it stand.
Something as grievous as slavery is not justified for any reason whether
it is the mid 1800's or 2005.

> <snipped a bunch of stuff I agree with>
>
> In short, the Civil War was fought over the right of an individual State
> to decide it's own laws, and one of the laws in question pertained to
> slavery. To declare otherwise is simply a twist of the facts. Similar
> in effect to the way that Malcom X's change in beliefs near the end of
> his life never seems to be acurately reported, but there are a lot of
> "X" shirts worn near where I live.

A State's rights does not supersede parts of the Constitution or what is
just plain right. IMO, slavery is not justifiable for any reason.
Would you support a State's right to exterminate all Jews residing in
its borders? If you don't then you admit that a State has limits to its
autonomy. Making someone a slave is just one step removed from killing
them, IMHO.

> Also, the Stars 'n Bars was never the flag of the CSA. It was a battle
> flag, used as such. As a pair of shirts I saw state.........
> "If this flag offends you, you need a history lesson." and
> "You wear your X and I'll wear mine".

Everyone should have the right to display anything they want that
doesn't incite violence against others. The Confederate flag is a tie
to a time when the South was fighting to maintain the right of whites to
own black slaves. You can sugar coat it as being a fight about State's
rights but that doesn't change the fact that is was a war over the
economic benefits of owning slaves. There is absolutely no
justification for one human to own another. Period. I still haven't
been given a decent explanation as to why someone would want to display
a flag that was, and still is, associated with the perpetuation of slavery.

I would be listed as anti-slavery. At the same time, I think it is
crap to try to cover up history in pursuit of being politically
correct.

Slavery, for all it's ills, was legal at the time. It was an accepted
part of life in many parts of the world. The majority of slaves were
supplied by Africans and by Middle Eastern slave traders.

The so called Confederate flag was not the flag of the Confederacy. It
was a battle flag. No different that the Rising Sun flag of Japan was
a battle flag, not the flag of the nation of Japan.

As for displaying the battle flag, I believe it is an issue of free
speech. If neo-Nazi can display the swastika, and the KKK can march
with their Christian cross and Klan flags, and their right, and the
rights of similar groups to display them may not be infringed, what
makes the battle flag of the Confederacy any different?

All this "stuff" about changing the logos of states, their flags, and
renaming geographical locations, school teams, etc, is idiocy. It is
an attempt to bury history so that it will be forgotten. It steals the
heritage, good or bad, of the people. It falls in line with the push
to remove any and all, reference to a Christian God from public
places. Where does it stop? Shall we send in the curators to remove
such references from all historical documents? Physically cut the
words out of them?

Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. How then
may the people remember if every sign of such ills is stripped away
from view, and buried? When school text is re-written to reflect the
thought of today and represent it as the thought of the past?

Then, too, we have the push to make atonement to various groups
(blacks, Japanese, Eskimos, etc) for past transgressions. Bull. To go
back in history and make amends for what was then legal is insane.
It may not have been right morally, but it was quite legal, and it
took place. Hiding any visible signs, or making financial restitutions
does not change the fact that they took place.

It's time this nation stood up, and while condemning such practices,
tell the ACLU that enough is enough. For both good and bad, this
nation has a past; a history and heritage which belongs to the people
who built it with sweat and blood. It may not be always pretty, but it
is dishonest to bury it as has been the line of thought in recent
decades.


On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:37:58 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

>Eric G wrote:
>> I've been lurking for quite a while, and I think I have even posted
>> before. I'd like to help you understand this part. I've been a civil
>> war buff since the mid '80s, and the biggest problem with the flag is
>> that the post 60s era has misconstrued the facts to suit them. In the
>> movie "Gods and Generals" there is a scene that hit me when I saw it,
>> and that is when a character reads in a northern news paper that the
>> emancipation proclemation had been signed by the President. The
>> character's rationalization of that action was that the southerner's
>> spirit would be broken by having the institution broken down in such a
>> way.
>>
>> The point that seems to be missed by EVERYONE since the generation after
>> the war was over is that the war was fought to protect..........The
>> State's rights to determine it's own laws and regulations.
>
>It really was a war regarding economics of owning slaves in the South.
>That being said it doesn't make the South right in its cause. Are you
>saying a State should have the right to determine that other races can
>be enslaved? I can't buy that as being justified as a state's right.
>Under this logic any state could pass a law to legalize slavery and the
>Federal Government and the rest of the States would let it stand.
>Something as grievous as slavery is not justified for any reason whether
>it is the mid 1800's or 2005.
>
>> <snipped a bunch of stuff I agree with>
>>
>> In short, the Civil War was fought over the right of an individual State
>> to decide it's own laws, and one of the laws in question pertained to
>> slavery. To declare otherwise is simply a twist of the facts. Similar
>> in effect to the way that Malcom X's change in beliefs near the end of
>> his life never seems to be acurately reported, but there are a lot of
>> "X" shirts worn near where I live.
>
>A State's rights does not supersede parts of the Constitution or what is
>just plain right. IMO, slavery is not justifiable for any reason.
>Would you support a State's right to exterminate all Jews residing in
>its borders? If you don't then you admit that a State has limits to its
>autonomy. Making someone a slave is just one step removed from killing
>them, IMHO.
>
>> Also, the Stars 'n Bars was never the flag of the CSA. It was a battle
>> flag, used as such. As a pair of shirts I saw state.........
>> "If this flag offends you, you need a history lesson." and
>> "You wear your X and I'll wear mine".
>
>Everyone should have the right to display anything they want that
>doesn't incite violence against others. The Confederate flag is a tie
>to a time when the South was fighting to maintain the right of whites to
>own black slaves. You can sugar coat it as being a fight about State's
>rights but that doesn't change the fact that is was a war over the
>economic benefits of owning slaves. There is absolutely no
>justification for one human to own another. Period. I still haven't
>been given a decent explanation as to why someone would want to display
>a flag that was, and still is, associated with the perpetuation of slavery.

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address