Geeto67

Because of deferred maint where owners treat it like its a Honda? Or does the car legit just wear out from build quality like its a third gen camaro?

The SN197 mustang was sold for 10 years with only one major face lift. They sold more of them than dodge has sold challengers and it hasn't hurt depreciation any. I think what dodge has tapped into is that the V8 market wasn't ready to move up line like ford and GM were pushing and it left a lot of buyers behind who don't want v6 or 4 cyl turbo mustangs and camaros 300hp or not. Since the tooling on the challenger has been paid for long ago dodge can just keep cranking them out at 2009 prices and pick up everyone ford and chebby left behind.

To be fair, Trump attacked Morning Joe and Mika pretty savagely last year, and as I remember it was largely unprovoked. They criticized some move he made, and he attacked them personally, something about a bleeding face lift?. There is no love lost between them but remember two things: 1) Morning Joe isn't news - it's entertainment. It's about as credible for news as "the daily show". 2) Morning Joe is a conservative program, despite the network. Joe Scarborough's show replaced Don Imus's old show and was put in place keep his conservative demographic. Don't fall for the trap, they are on air specifically to draw a reaction and provide biased entertainment. It isn't even worth the animated eyeroll gif.

Hey Austin, I have a Rode mike and a decent LAV mic you can borrow for a while. PM me and we will work something out. Something I don't think anybody else has talked about here is lighting. The part 1 video was driving me crazy with you having the camera shadow track across your face. I am nerd blocked at work but RealmPictures has a pretty good tutorial about lighting on youtube. You should watch that, and probably a bunch others about lighting. Eye Light is very important for any filming that involves a talking head.

Why is it talking about the CR-Z? that car was discontinued in 2016.

not gonna lie, that actually looks hawt.

:dumb: Tim, I think any benefit of the doubt I was giving you just went out the window. Farrakhan isn't off limits, I just don't understand the relevance? Tell me why we are talking about them? I don't think you'll ever find me defending them.

He has more flaws than...ahem...most Still,sticking his dick in a porn star doesn't mean he's incompetent, the fact that he forgot to sign the NDA after he bought her off doesn't help him though.

Everybody has character flaws. There is no morally perfect person. I want to know why the sex life of your politician is specifically important to you in deciding whether he can do his job?

The Southern Poverty Law center classifies the Nation of Islam as a Black Separatist hate group, not any different from the klan or any other what would be considered a white supremacist hate group. Yeah they suck, bit time for the racisim and the homophobia, and all the other bullshit, but are they really that active these days? I mean when was the last time you heard the NOI holding a violent rally, or..well...anything? But since when have I ever brought up the Nation of Islam or Louis Farrakhan, at all? or said that I support them in any way? Why are we talking about them now? Oh that's right, you need some sort of comparative moral justification to maintain this idea you have about white people being under attack. Also, I am pretty sure I never said molon labe and white supremacy are mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure they aren't, however my personal opinion is that the venn diagram of both groups is not narrow, but I have no proof of that. Not that I have said that before this conversation. Why do you measure the right thing to do by whether people will like me or not? seems odd. Are you insinuating that I am some sort of "race traitor"? because it sure sounds like that to me. Keep in mind, white supremacists wouldn't have me either, I'm just way easier to hide.

I wasn't referencing anyone in specific Tim, but clearly I hit a nerve with you. But thank you for demonstrating what I was talking about before, with this thing about brown people and it being "trendy to hate on white people".

To some people it's sub-textual and contextual. If you keep referring to groups of brown people as "turds" it's hard to argue that complexion isn't factoring in there in some way. I mean, scumbags doesn't have a color associated with it why not use that? or any number of other ones. Why use one where it's a commentary of both color and consistency of character? I mean I figured it would be obvious when the sentence starts off with "the Somali population in Columbus is ...", but maybe people in cbus really are more literal than subtextual. Maybe it's just more unknowlingly insensitive than intentional, who knows? I'm not in their heads, I can just say how it sounds to me.

Ah see, the "lie profusely" about it is the rub. Most politicians feel like they have to lie profusely about it because the majority of Americans will judge them, even if the sex is consensual and permitted. Whether you like it or not, marriage is an agreement between two people, and sometimes that agreement has non-conventional terms. Right more Americans would be understanding about someone having an affair and lying about it than they would about a politician and their spouse having an open marriage. So, can you really blame them if they just want to avoid public scorn? Is it an indicator of a lack of integrity and a character flaw? yes it is. Does it affect their ability to be an advocate and represent the common interests of the people who elected them? it does not. Integrity in terms of politicians is kind of a tricky thing to discuss. On the one hand we don't want a politician that has integrity to his own beliefs because we want him to be able to change his mind in the light of different facts, and work with people whose opinion is different than theirs to find a common solution. On the other hand we want politicians to have integrity toward the role and to represent all the interests of the people they represent in the face of special interests that try to sway their actions. The sad truth is we tend to elect politicians that have the wrong types of integrity because we let our "morals" decide for us, and lying about an affair in the face of the ramifications of public opinion isn't really a good indicator of anything. think about the town hall Marco Rubio had in the wake of the parkland shooting. David Hogg, one of the victims, asks him (and I am paraphasing) "will you continue to take money from the NRA" and Marco Rubio responded (paraphrasing) "I don't buy into their agenda, they buy into mine". On it's face it seems innocuous, but what David was really asking was, "Why do you continue to advance this special interest when we, the people you represent, are telling you we want action" and what Rubio is really saying is "The NRA brings me something that I don't get from representing you so I am going to continue to make my platform something they are interested in investing in". Why don't we have a bigger issue with that than we do with who played hide the pink in the stink with whom?

I think you underestimate American's ability to hold a grudge, esp southern Americans. I lived in New Orleans for just over 4 years and "the lost cause" is very much alive and well in the south: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy The thing that separates southerners from everyone else, is this latent hatred and bigotry is part of their cultural identity and that's much harder to separate than the tribalism we tend to see here in the north. One thing I have personally noticed here in Ohio, and even in NY is that the casual racism you encounter is aggressive and drawn along cultural lines. Look at how often certain immigrants here get blamed for the problems most societies face and how people have no issue using "turds" and other aggressively pejorative and suggestively racist terms. Things here in the Midwest are "ni#@$%er rigged" and the Somali population if "full of turds" because crime. But with southerners it's much deeper and matter of fact. Black people are just inferior to them and they don't lose an ounce of sleep over it, and don't need to walk around calling people the n word or turd when "Boy" and "Son" or any number of seemingly innocent but obviously subjugating terms will suffice. They aren't the cause of crime, they are "victims of being driven to it because their inferiority keeps them from being productive, we should put them back in subjugation to save them from themselves". It's insidious. Minorities and children are expected to say "yessir" and "nosir" but if you say it as an adult white male they will look and treat you as a subordinate or mentally impaired. So let's talk about monuments, the government, and messages conveyed. Every confederate monument exists on the spectrum between the two cases I posted above, and sadly most fall more in the direction of the New Orleans monument than the one in Ohio. In post civil war, reconstruction, America people got really good at drafting laws to circumvent the 13th amendment to the constitution. This is where the concept of disparate impact comes in: they could draft laws that on their face looked benign but in practice had horrible effects on specific populations of people. At first some of these were comically bad, but they evolved into the segregation laws called "Jim Crow laws". On it's face separate but equal sounds....um....equal, but we know now that it isn't. Putting a memorial to a confederate general in a public park sounds benign, except when it's a general known for killing and beating slaves and the public park you put it in is in a black neighborhood in a state that otherwise has no ties to the person, and you are doing it at a time in history when Segregation is under attack or civil rights were being rallied for. The battle of liberty place monument was intended to be a beacon for white supremacy, and it did that job effectively. A lot of other monuments were placed for the same purpose with similar or lesser effect. And just because they weren't effective doesn't mean they aren't innocent either. The thing about government land is that it enjoys privileges that private land does not. People can exercise their constitutional rights on public land (like free speech), which they cannot do on private, and not be touched by the government. So the government can't really interfere with white supremacists right to publicly gather as long as they are not harming the public at large. Why did the state feel the need to erect a beacon to that cause on public land? to draw those people. Why did they continue to leave it in place and even replace it when construction moved it? because that's what they believe in. Why else would a government allow a private group to erect a monument to their message on public land if they didn't feel they also supported that message? And in the face of no amount of carved foot notes or asterisk's are going to dilute that message, the last resort is removal. A person puts up a horribly racist statue on his private land, sure we can all judge him for it, and say nasty things, but as long as he is within his local building code there isn't much that can be done. But on public land? that's when the city, state, or federal government is choosing to make a statement. A lot of people are calling out these vestiges of horribly racist local governments and saying "is this what you still believe"? if not then take this symbol of hatred down. Every square inch of land in the US is historical in some way, and monuments could probably be placed on all if we really felt statues were how we recorded history, but we don't. We reserve it as a commemorative honor, to say something special. I think these statues have said all they are going to say on this matter and if we are going to move forward it is to focus on how we came together after and not how divided we were then.

so 33 x 11.22 or 33 x 10.04 how much mudding do you think you are going to do? and how important is fuel economy? I personally would go with the wider tire just because I like the look of wide tires. Might help with the kind of mud we get here but won't be great for your mileage.

Keep in mind what I am saying here....not all confederate statues need to come down. I am not even saying all UDOTC statues need to come down, but some of there weren't put up with the best of intentions and some of them carry some really nasty messages that the state pays to maintain. Let's consider one of Ohio's confederate monuments: "The Lookout" at the confederate cemetery on Johnson's Island. It's not commemorating any one person or event, ostensibly its a cemetery marker, replacing the previous marker which was just a bolder. It honors those POWs who are buried in the cemetery, not the cause of the confederacy, not the individual achievements of a confederate, just people who died and not necessarily in combat. It has a pretty standard message that you find in any cemetery, the only questionable thing is the inscription "Dead but sceptered sovereigns who still rule us from the dust" presumably referring to the fact that this was an officer's camp. It also has an inscription that honors all masons buried there regardless of Union or confederate. It's a hard case to make that it should be removed, and rightly so the monument has pretty much avoided that discussion. At the same time Let's consider the Battle of Liberty Place Monument in New Orleans. The monument memorializes a specific event: a failed insurrection by a pro-south, white supremacist group that occurred 10 years after the end of the civil war. It was lobbied for by the UDOTC, and passed by the city as part of a collection of Jim Crow laws passed at the same time. At the time, several groups objected to it because of the overt racisim which caused a delay in it's erection (the lookout was erected in 1910, this was erected in around 1900), and there has been constant objection to it since then. Because of it's controversy, it became a rally point for many white supremacy groups for roughly 100+ years. Several lynchings actually occurred there. David Duke has praised it as a symbol of white pride. in 1974 the city added this inscription "battle of Liberty Place" and this monument are important parts of the New Orleans history, the sentiments in favor of white supremacy expressed thereon are contrary to the philosophy and beliefs of present-day New Orleans" but it did little to slow it's use as a congregation point for white supremacist groups when they conducted protests. When it was announced it would be removed, Mississippi House of Representatives member Karl Oliver said publicly "all who call for it's removal should be lynched" (fyi he represents the district in which Emmit Till was actually lynched). So tell me, to what value does this ad to the message of the state or the city? What historical value is really being celebrated? It's a monument that was specifically put up to intimidate black people from day one, and recognized as such, and continued to do so until 2017. It's not even on the site of the actual battle, though it is not far from it and on the same street (canal street). I don't really have a problem with the state saying "we aren't going to continue to endorse this message of hate". Do you?

I'm trying to convince the wife to go because we are in the market to replace her Audi soon. I want her to sit in a VW golf alltrak and a subaru crosstrek back to back so we can start to narrow in on a car.

Ok, First off, We shouldn't be taking anything down in London, because last I checked England isn't part of the United States. Same thing with Peru where the Inca pyramids are located. It's their culture, let their governments deal with how they want to handle. Just because we are the US doesn't mean we have to stick our morally superior dick in every single thing. Second, Show me the statue they have erected to Ghandi's pedophilia and I will absolutely support it being taken down. Same with the statue erected specifically to honor Washington's slave ownership. Let's be clear about something: Every single member of the confederacy committed an act of treason against the US government. And I don't mean treason like they way people throw it around with respect to trump or W or Obama, but in the literal definition that is enumerated in the constitution (levying war against the government and aiding and abetting its enemies). During the war there was at least one person executed specifically for treason, and 500 executed for crimes related to treason. Lincoln, post the civil war decided it was the best interest in healing the country to not levy charges of treason against Davis, Lee, et al..., he absolutely felt they had committed treason and publicly said so many times (most famously in an 1863 published letter stating several confederate generals had committed treason), so it wasn't like he had a bad case - he just felt it wasn't in the country's best interest in reconstruction. When the United Daughters of the Confederacy began their statue campaign, their aim was to honor the specific act of committing treason against the united states in order to keep people as property. They didn't phrase it that way their official position is "Commemorating Confederate Soldiers", but it's kind of the same thing, is it not? Think about their mission which is specifically to do two things - erect "heroic" monuments and run a disinformation campaign that trivializes the impact or conditions of slavery. As a private organization they are free to believe whatever, but where I draw the when they convince the government to buy into their mission of honoring traitors who believed so hard that black people are inferior that it cost many of them their life. To use your prior example: this is like whatever the english version of NAMBLA is petitioning the Queen to erect a statue to ghandi's illicit love of children and the queen responding "ok, should we erect it outside a school so it will really scare the children to behave? or will in front of parliament do so that the children thinks the government just want's to fuck them?". The UDOTC choose to do this specifically during times when the country was fighting for civil rights as a form of protest - is this the message you really want to honor? Nobody in history is squeaky clean, people are people and sometimes the rise to power causes a stockpile of skeletons to build in ones closet. What is important is the message we seek to honor. In the case of confederate monuments, most (not all, but def most) are specifically honoring bigotry, without much in the way of generally redeeming other qualities. Frankly, there are plenty of private individuals who honor that, and millions of books, movies, etc...that prevent us from ever forgetting it, so why must the state buy into that continuing message? Why do you want the government honoring bigotry. I don't exactly see a lot of state monuments to Hitler or the German army in the US, so why does this group of enemies of the US get "special treatment"? By the way, I always joke that there are no monuments to Benedict Arnold - America's most famous traitor - but it turns out there is one: The Boot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument It was erected specifically to honor Arnold's contribution and sacrifice at the Battles of Saratoga, which broke the back of the British forces and led to the US's inevitable victory. Arnold's later defection to the British means that his name doesn't actually appear on this monument to him (it's a boot because he was shot in the leg), making it a Damnatio memoriae - commerating the act but condemning the person. The old joke told about Arnold is that if he was ever caught by the American forces he sold out they would cut off and bury his wounded leg with full military honors and try and hang the rest of him as a criminal and enemy of the state. It turns out it really wasn't a joke. Since you are South African, I have to ask - would you be ok with the SA government erecting Statues honoring "heroes" who championed Apartheid now?

It's a celebration of a person or event, historical accuracy sometimes being secondary or not at all (see robocop, Fonzi, and rocky statues) More symbolic honor than anything else. The majority of confederate statues weren't erected close in time to the civil war, they were erected during Jim Crow (early 1900's) and during the civil rights movement of the 1960's. By your logic they are a time capsule of racial bigotry and intolerance - because that is the symbol and message they carried at the time. The people who are removing them are not trying to remove history, there is no striking of the history books or revision of the record, they are refusing to let the message of bigotry continue to be endorsed by the state. Don't be a twat.

autoshow on the same weekend as St. Particks day? oh the convention center is gonna smell great.

you are right, and a statue is sometimes very little history and a lot more political/social statement. As long as it's somewhere it doesn't have to be everywhere.

Don't let anybody stop you from living your life in private according to your family values. That's your business. But "Family values" as a measure of public policy? it's entirely too subjective to be rational and it doesn't often offer a solution just a prohibition. Can it provide some weight in the decision making? sure, I suppose everything has some intrinisc value, but in the realm of how to govern a massive body of people and make them all get along its just not that important. This is the distinction I often find in talking with conservatives, they don't understand why other people won't live to their standards of "family values" and why we can't just force them through laws. It's almost as if they don't understand that what works for one person doesn't work for everyone.

It's a good thing we have all those history books then. Statues go up and down all the time, they are commemorative more than they are historical. Statues put up 30-100 years after the incident for the specific purpose of suppressing political action or to intimidate a specific group of American citizens aren't really there to educate regarding history, they are there to stir emotion and suppress people. Yes we should never erase our history, but we don't have to use every single method to do that. Having reams and reams of books is sufficient to document the civil war and it's cast of characters. We don't need a statue of the first Grand Wizard the KKK put up in 2010, by a guy who claims Martin Luther King Jr was properly assassinated, to remember Nathan Bedford Forrest. Thankfully the state has nothing to do with this particular statute and it is erected on private land, but we don't need the state clearing vegetation specifically to make it visible from the highway, esp when we still have all those books. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/ugly-nathan-bedford-forrest-statue I am all for a case by case basis review of the monuments cities, states, et al erect, but this stupidity that a piece of rock or metal is somehow an unapproachable piece of history full stop is nonsense.

I prefer the Anderson Cooper massive eyeroll approach and continue ignoring it for the gibberish it is. There is no serious public policy conversation that contains the words "family values".

It is but it has become a largely local conversation. We don't have a lot of statues commemorating people who committed treason against the US government, but I still have these conversations with my friends that live in New Orleans and Atlanta. But it pretty much started and stopped with confederate monuments, so all that outrage about removing statues to founding fathers that the right seemed to drum up in opposition was more reactionary fear than reality. You know this is a really interesting point, because Reagan pretty much sailed into office promoting the notion that he was going to return the country to the the "simpler times of the 1950's". Except that no previous time was any more or less complex than the present. I think people just get really nostalgic for their youth, because that was the time when the world seemed simpler, because in the 80's as a kid you didn't have to worry about the AIDS epidemic that was raging so long as thundercats came on at the scheduled time.