Geeto67

oh there were ads, not on social media oddly (dewine had a bunch of youtube ads), but they were there. It's like him waiting in line for coffee, and giving a dog water on a hot day. Real hokey non-attack stuff. Meanwhile Dewine was swinging for the bleachers with attack ads about untested rape kits and drug use (both of which have since been debunked as outright lies and half truths). This race was Codray's to lose and lose it he did. gerrymandering played a big part and I don't know if he could have overcome it but he sure didn't try.

probably not. how long did you drive it with 0 PS fluid in it? Just keep a bottle of PS fluid with you cuz it will probably all piss out anyway if it was empty to begin with. you know how when escalators fail they just become stairs? when when power steering fails it just becomes manual steering (and then costs you money).

Time to flush the PS system.

the LT4 Z06 I think had cooling problems as well due to the c7's bodywork, but I think the c6 had them too for a completely different reason related to something electrical. Cordell would know more since he's actually a GM tech and I am just going off what happened to a friend of mine with a c6.

Google it, it's a common problem esp with the earlier C6 cars. Every corvette forum has at least half a dozen posts on it. Something to do with bad fan relays or something.

They are all targas or convertibles, the fixed roof coupes were only the C5. IIRC these cars had cooling system issues and would overheat when run hard. Take a look for any signs of an overheat like replaced head gaskets, gunk in the coolant, etc...

I have an unopened can of it somewhere. found it in my grandparents attic in the 80's and held on to it. I think it's at my parents house.

Pretty much this. Let's not forget all the old age jokes they made about Reagan, which were esp cruel when the country knew he had Alzheimers. Or the fact that Gerald Ford did literally nothing buy play golf - it was all people could talk about. How about Billy Carter? President carter's redneck brother who was trotted out everyone wanted a good laugh.

Clinton also took a lot of shit in the 90's for his immigration policy, esp after the standoff in El Paso and the human wall. The "they took our jobs" rhetoric brought a ton of criticism down on his head. I am not sure what the point is here - Do you remember the 90's? Clinton was called all sorts of horrible things, and that was before the Lewinsky scandal. Defense of marriage act? yeah it wasn't like america embraced it wholeheartedly. You know what Clinton didn't do? go out an call his critics "Losers" and then make a sweeping generalizations about the entirety of gays and impugning their moral character on twitter. Clinton's are Blue conservatives. whether you want to admit that or not it's in the numbers and their issues on positions. But since when to facts seem to get in the way of a good narrative?

And yet neither of those presidents actually separated immigrant children from their parents....hmmmm It's almost as if there was a moral line they felt was too far to cross. Also, that video of Obama is heavily edited to move his statements out of order. If you look at the transcript of his actual speech he says a lot of those things but not in the order the video presents and ina very different context and drawing very different conclusions. Excerpt below.

So the "consequence" of someone calling you a name is that you must pummel them. But that only applies to you right? Let's not forget, in this thread you called me a Racist, a Liar, a Pussy, and an Idiot, and I went out of my way to say I wan't calling you a racist, and then called you a "bitch" as part of a common colloquial phrase. What do you think the appropriate consequences you should face for those actions? What should happen to you for doing the exact same thing to me that you think gives you the right to be violent to me when I do it to a lesser degree to you? Really, tell me what you think I should do to make you face the consequences of your actions? https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/05/us/florida-yoga-studio-shooting/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/27/us/active-shooter-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting.html https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/california-shooting-intl/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/nyregion/cnn-cory-booker-pipe-bombs-sent.html

His "nice tough guy" ads didn't help either.

I dunno, maybe Don Lemon was right after all....:gabe:

Ok, but just because you saw someone win the lottery doesn't mean the odds aren't in the favor of the house. The CONTEXT that makes your statement racist, and the context that you conveniently ignore, is that the odds are not in their favor for success and the reason is because of hundreds of years of racist policy that continues to this day. Again, I don't think your are being intentionally racist, but are you intentionally ignoring that the system is rigged against minorities? Why I (and I am not alone in thinking this) think your statements are racist: 1. It ignores a the inherent racism in a system, and victim blames ALL members of a particular race for circumstances beyond their control 2. It confuses correlation for causality and wrongly ascribes that causality to race 3. It reinforces a negative, and largely untrue, stereotype 4. It gives an excuse to not fix a broken and intentionally racially biased system that is in need of repair and continues the status quo of systemic racism in this country. Yes it is generally true that hard work will improve the chances (but guarantee) success for people, ALL PEOPLE. Why do you feel like black people need to work harder for the same opportunities as white people? why is it the victims responsibility to overcome the odds stacked against them when you can just change the odds and let them succeed on their merits on a level playing field? Ooooh such a tough guy. Solve this problem with violence, because that TOTALLY solves everything and nothing bad can ever stem from that. /Sarcasm. So thin skinned you can dish it out but can't take it, give me a break. Bitch.

Again haven't called you a racist. I have asked, repeatedly, why you don't see the racism in an obvious racist statement that you claim isn't racist and you dodge the question by saying things like the above. Just because you may have unintentionally said something that is racist doesn't mean you are a klansman, but it seems like nothing is going to keep you from hanging on that cross you have built. Bitch Please. I come from the city that invented american ghettos. While you were walking about your "inner city", my neighbors were burning down their apartments. But this isn't a fight about who grew up in what neighborhood, because that would be a pretty stupid thing to fight about. So I am going to ask you again, why don't you see the racism in this obvious racist statement you want to defend? If you don't have a good answer, then maybe it isn't as race neutral as you thought.

Go back a page Tim, he was pretty clear about it. He also said inner city kids (well recognized racist code for black people) are too lazy to better themselves. While I agree it is every one's responsibility to follow the laws of the country, it's a stretch to get to this point from those statements. i don't think he was being intentionally malicious or racist, but the point of that conversation was to show the double standard where people will make excuses for obvious racist statements they make about minorities but get their panties in a twist when someone else makes those statements about them. You are literally illustrating my point by going to great lengths to make an excuse or reinterpret something obvious on its face to take it out of the realm of racism. This whole thing started because some whack-a-doo said some shitty racist things about white people, and right away the reaction was "she should die in a terrorist explosion", but the moment someone says "what about this other shitty racist thing you say" suddenly there is a rush to make excuses as to why it's not racist. Obvious double standard is obvious.

I'm not saying that ALL white people are racists, but objectively speaking there are white supremacists, and there are people like you who make excuses for their rhetoric and defend their actions. There are people, like mace, who say that all black people are responsible for crime and think that is a perfectly non racist statement (it's not) but lose their shit and cry racisim foul when you say all white people are responsible for white supremacy. It's illustrating the double standard which allows white supremacy to exist. You can claim to be fair all you want, but if you publicly defend a recognized white supremacy talking point like white genocide, don't expect people to think you aren't one.

this type of thinking is also how you fear monger. He doesn't explicitly say it but the premise doesn't hold true without it. Without oversight, there is no hiring based on merit alone so you need some sort of program. I don't like it any more than you do, because it is a band-aid fix and not fixing a broken system, but hiring based on merit alone means that the crooked system will naturally disadvantage minority qualified applicants. It's a band aid fix for sure, but keep in mind - this kind of logic is how white supremacy worked in the Jim crow era. If you can't explicitly discriminate based on race - find a neutral factor that yields the same outcome and do that. It's called disparate impact and it continues to be the primary tool of intentional racial discrimination today. Ongoing, as in it still happens today. All of them. Actually again this is untrue, and I don't think you know how it works. It is illegal to make a hiring decision based on race. "Affirmative action" only applies to govern't entities and contractors and higher education - and the focus is more on recruiting and managing the existing workforce to eliminate favoritism. Diversity hiring in private companies is voluntary, and again they can't use race as a hiring tactic, but they can evaluate their existing workforce and hiring practices to figure out why they aren't attracting diverse qualified candidates. this includes being more flexible about the job position (hours, WFH, child care, etc), and targeted recruiting. Remember, companies that do this want a diverse work force, they aren't being "forced" to take anybody they don't want to hire. but tell me again how companies are being forced to take the lesser qualified individual against their will - it makes a nice campfire story. It's white supremacy, and it's posted on a known white supremacy blog. It has all the hall marks, it's based on incorrect information, and it uses the same fear mongering tactics and has the same agenda. Greg's not wrong about this, and I get given your context of being south african how you can be understanding of it, but I don't know why you keep making excuses for what is clearly white supremacy in the context of america. then stop making excuses for white supremacist propaganda and advancing a white supremacist agenda. I will give you this little gift though: There is one way in which white people are under attack. Culturally, we have not done enough to root out and eradicate white supremacy within our own ranks. We make excuses for it like you have done above, we allow people to make statements that "black people are lazy and that is why they haven't improved" or "the black community needs to account for it's criminals" and don't readily call it out as racism, and we let people use coded words to rail against programs and groups that promote diversity, unity, and equality. We pretend like social conservatism doesn't have the ongoing dog whistle of racism running through almost every policy, and that conservative politicians aren't pandering and stoking the fires of white fear. It's a real fucking problem, and because of it, and because of an administration that emboldens them, we are having to be held account for it as racist shitbags this this guy in Canada make themselves more public.

I advocate a swift kick to the nuts. Or this: I mean, I am not going to because...pacifist....but, I could seriously watch that all day on youtube.

yeah you are misreading/reading too much into that. Nobody is losing their jobs legally because of "diversity". His entire premise is built on the fallacy that it is the natural order that white people are just more qualified for open positions at a company. What he fails to grasp is that the reason there is a disproportionate number of white people in business (which he doesn't think is disproportionate) is the direct result of ethnic cleansing, and the purpose of diversity hiring programs is to give incentive to companies to hire qualified minorities who would otherwise not be considered for the position due to their race. Other than a few misguided individuals when diversity programs were first introduced decades ago, nobody is being forced to take an unqualified individual for any position - but his whole argument rests on the assumption that diversity programs do exactly that in their singular aim of replacing white people in the "the business world". Greg is 100% right - it's white supremacy whackadoo garbage. I'm just curious, why do you not think it is? What's the thing you hang your hat on that gives it credibility?

Greg beat me to it but, yes he is wrong. The goal of diversity, as well as it's practical effect isn't to create an ethnically homogeneous society - it's actually the opposite. Its to create an ethnically diverse society that benefits from multiple viewpoints and to introduce more culture into a society within the basic framework of laws that exist. No one culture is replacing any other culture, the goal is to have both cultures coexist without negative impact and for everyone to benefit from the shared information and viewpoints. what happened before with slavery and segregation, was actual ethnic cleansing, undoing the harm of generations of suppression and ethnic population control isn't. When Tim and the other loonies say "people coming here need to adapt, assimilate, and embrace american culture" they are trying to create a homogeneous society because they are imposing a cultural requirement on top of the basic laws of the country. That's the language you need to be scared of, because that is the type of thinking that leads to this "white people are under attack" nonsense and white supremacy manifestos like the one we are discussing. Just because it is fear based doesn't mean it is rational. Right now there is a lot of irrational fear mongering going on and it's causing some people to take leave of their senses. the hitchhiker's guide said it best: "Don't Panic". Be level headed and pragmatic and chances are a "caravan" of vulnerable people marching on foot won't have you screaming at the top of your lungs "they took our jobs". Calling diversity "ethnic cleansing" is not a rational conclusion to anything, unless you believe that white culture is the only culture and should be left untainted (which our manifesto writer does because he explicitly says so). Except that is not what is happening. That's what people irrationally fear is happening but it's not based in any real world scenario in the US that is legal. It's the boogeyman.

I am not calling you a racist at all, I am asking why you don't see some of the inherent racism in the statements? do you not believe they are there? or do it see it and just dismiss it as a lesser concern? we aren't debating, I am asking you specific (and hard) questions about your particular viewpoint as a way of trying to understand it. What you say is obviously racist to other people but not you, why? what's the disconnect? Think of it more as an interview, and feel free to ask me why or how I see it when you don't.

Did you read this manifesto? It takes a hard right into crazy town pretty quickly alleging diversity is ethnic cleansing, and other white supremacy tropes and mis-characterizations of diversity and multiculturalism. I think it is interesting purely because it is a look at the reaction people seem to be having to progress. Nothing in here is new, novel, interesting on its own, or remotely based in fact, but it's interesting to see how twisted people's fear can make their logic. I can understand it, but I can't agree with it or think the people who do are good people (because they are not). I genuinely feel sorry for people who think like this, not only because it is misguided and based in fear more than fact, but also that it makes them do horrible things and compromise their values.

Ok, but do you realize you are ascribing a non racial characteristic to a particular race? crime isn't exclusive to black people, but your statement presumes that it is Crime isn't caused by race, but your statement sets it up as a race based issue. you are literally demonstrating the blindness and double standard greg, and I and others are pointing out to you, and even still you double down here and refuse to hear it. Well if the history I was being taught was mostly about how I am inferior to other races, I wouldn't be that thrilled to be in school either. Also if my teachers were apathetic, underpaid, incompetent, and generally not engaged I don't know that i'd have much enthusiasm. But again, that's not a function of race, that's a function of poverty. You'll see the same thing in a school that is predominantly white and poor, or hispanic and poor. The subtext of what you are saying here is black people are lazy even as students, and it baffles me that you don't see that. BTW, I have been to many "inner city" schools, and there are some that get a little bit of funding and improve dramatically, esp if they have a diverse ethnic population. If only hundreds of years of racism in real estate didn't systematically create ethnic ghettos.... It's not racist to point out that some of the things you say have very racist subtext that you are not seeing. I'm not doing it because you are white, I'm doing it because on their face and in the context of history the things you write have embedded racism you refuse to see. I am just tying to understand why you refuse to see it in those things and yet it's plain as day when some crazy white chick says it about white people. You don't have a problem spotting it then, so why do you have a problem now? What do you think I left out in not quoting your whole statement will somehow change the context of what you are saying. I left out portions of quoting you because I wanted to focus on the core statement and the other parts weren't really relevant and were a distraction. What do you think I am missing by leaving extraneous information? And by the way, you can't really cry out of context when your whole statement is literally just a few posts earlier .

Do you not think this is a racist statement? If so, why not?