Why is Obama Black?
Why does Obama state he is black, when he is as much white as he is black? Since he was raised by his white mother and grandparents, culturally isn't he more white than black??
Why doesn't he just say he is biracial? When I was growing up, the term mulatto was used but it is now considered demeaning by some.
same reason Halle Berry is black?
Perhaps because until about 60 years ago, anyone with a non Caucasian element to their parentage was treated as socially inferior. If your parents' generation has grown up with the assumption that you are half caste (and I only realised what a derogatory term that was about 5 years ago!) then you don't really have a choice but to identify yourself with the less socially advantaged part of your heritage.
The definition of "black" came from America's historical classifications, some of which can be read about
here:
The nation's answer to the question 'Who is black?" has long been that a black is any person with any known African black ancestry. This definition reflects the long experience with slavery and later with Jim Crow segregation. In the South it became known as the "one-drop rule,'' meaning that a single drop of "black blood" makes a person a black. It is also known as the "one black ancestor rule," some courts have called it the "traceable amount rule," and anthropologists call it the "hypo-descent rule," meaning that racially mixed persons are assigned the status of the subordinate group. This definition emerged from the American South to become the nation's definition, generally accepted by whites and blacks. Blacks had no other choice. As we shall see, this American cultural definition of blacks is taken for granted as readily by judges, affirmative action officers, and black protesters as it is by Ku Klux Klansmen.
But I thought that numerous studies have shown that we are all
out of Africa. So, by the one drop rule, we're all black.
You, me, them, everybody. Everybody.
you expect racism to be logical?
Pie - your info made me dig deeper on this subject. I came up with this:
Many people in the United States are rejecting the one drop rule and are questioning whether a person with one black parent should be considered black or biracial. Although politician Barack Obama self-identifies as black, 55 percent of whites and 61 percent of Hispanics classified him as biracial instead of black after being told that his mother is white. Blacks were less likely to acknowledge a multiracial category, with 66% labeling Obama as black.[44] Forty-two percent of African-Americans described Tiger Woods as black, as did 7% of white Americans.[
Big Sarge, that poll is looking at people's attitudes now. When Barack Obama was forging his self-identity, you were either white or not. Everything else: black, mullatto, half-caste, mixed race, whatever, was not white.
I look forward to the day when the entire human population becomes a medium even brown.
a few hundred thousand years in the future
African American - Descendant of African slaves in the United States
- [insert Ethnicity] American - Immigrant or offspring of immigrants from particular country. Usually used when individuals are still holding on to their culture. Can take out the American part.
-Black - African Americans, immigrants from African countries, or multiracial mixes from the first two.
Those are the common definitions that I see being used.
The Racial Draft
[youtube]MrwG6_Z0sjU[/youtube]
Better quality version.If Barack Obama called himself biracial, a lot of people would be saying he was being uppity. ;)
Why doesn't he just say he is biracial? When I was growing up, the term mulatto was used but it is now considered demeaning by just about everybody.
Fixed it for ya.
Why would mulatto be considered demeaning by just about everyone?? It was a legal definition and not a racial slur
But, correct me if I am wrong, Obama isn't African American - at least not in the same way others, say, Oprah for example, are. His father's lineage is directly from Africa, specifically Kenya.
Not that it matters as far as whether or not he'd be a good president. But if other black voters are supporting him on the basis of "he's one of us" then that info would be a little misleading, hm? In my experience (my daughter had a good friend a few years ago who was born in Africa...a black girl, yes) they are not of the same culture as the African Americans who were descended from slaves. I hope this doesn't sound racist, I don't mean it that way at all.
BTW I have a good friend who is also African American; he was born there and just got his citizenship this year. He's whiter than I am. :D Or isn't he African American, if he was born in SA, and isn't black? Just goes to show, labels can be misleading.
Why would mulatto be considered demeaning by just about everyone?? It was a legal definition and not a racial slur
From the spanish word
mulo, or mule.
As above. It meant that just because your parents could breed, it didn't mean they should. They ended up with you - neither nowt not summat.
It's the same as half-caste in that people used with no intention of offense until it was challenged. And then when you think about it, it is demeaning.
African American - Descendant of African slaves in the United States
- [insert Ethnicity] American - Immigrant or offspring of immigrants from particular country. Usually used when individuals are still holding on to their culture. Can take out the American part.
-Black - African Americans, immigrants from African countries, or multiracial mixes from the first two.
Those are the common definitions that I see being used.
Good point. Very few Blacks in the US are truely "African American", but that is the politically correct term to use now days for anyone who is of dark color living in the US. The term is HIGHLY misleading. I think they should stop using it. Why don't they just call themselves American. It strikes of a need to maintain difference for other reasons.
It's the favoured term right now. I'm sure it will slip out of vogue as others have (Negro, coloured etc) because as you say, it's not accurate.
But at least it fits in with the way other Americans describe themselves. For example half Swedish, half Irish because that's where their ancestors came from before they arrived in America.
From the spanish word mulo, or mule.
That's
one possibility.
It's the one which needs least trimming to make it fit.
Anyway, why should there be a specific word for mixing different DNA?
There's no word for generic English mixtures, although we will smilingly admit we're mongrel because of the years of invasion.
Mulatto belongs in the years of quadroon and octaroon and such like, surely?
There's something I've been longing to say about Obama, and though it relates very little to the subject of this thread, I'm gonna say it anyway:
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]
His lips are purple, and his ears are way big. [/COLOR]
There. I feel better now.
If Barack Obama called himself biracial, a lot of people would be saying he was being uppity. ;)
Also, associations would be under tighter scrutiny if he was any kind of white.
I guess I'm black. At least, I've had some black in me. And I've been in a few too. ;-)
But, correct me if I am wrong, Obama isn't African American - at least not in the same way others, say, Oprah for example, are. His father's lineage is directly from Africa, specifically Kenya.
In street use, especially in the black community, African American means a person who is a descendant of a slave in the United States. This differs from every other [ethnicity] American. Confusing a Somali immigrant with African American is fighting words in some parts, so its usually best not to mesh the two.
In my experience (my daughter had a good friend a few years ago who was born in Africa...a black girl, yes) they are not of the same culture as the African Americans who were descended from slaves. I hope this doesn't sound racist, I don't mean it that way at all.
Nope, African culture is much different than African American culture. African American culture is very Western, African culture is not.
BTW I have a good friend who is also African American; he was born there and just got his citizenship this year. He's whiter than I am. :D Or isn't he African American, if he was born in SA, and isn't black? Just goes to show, labels can be misleading.
People with black skin can be from South America, Africa, Arabian Peninsula, India, Indonesia, and native Australia. The political term black means African. Misleading? Yes, but that is how the terms are.
Good point. Very few Blacks in the US are truely "African American", but that is the politically correct term to use now days for anyone who is of dark color living in the US. The term is HIGHLY misleading. I think they should stop using it. Why don't they just call themselves American. It strikes of a need to maintain difference for other reasons.
I agree completely but I find it interesting that the only group that calls themselves "American" are people of European descendant. Natives are "Natives, Native American, or American Indian". Slaves of African decedent are "African American or black" and African immigrants are "Somalis, African, Nigerians, Blacks, etc". East Asian, Indians, Arabs, Mexicans, Latinos, etc are "[insert ethnicity] Americans or [insert ethnicity]".
I am heavily involved in the rugby community. I have many friends from SA, all who live and work in the US as permanent immigrants. They are all white and more African American than any blacks I know in the US.
I look forward to the day when the entire human population becomes a medium even brown.
a few hundred thousand years in the future
Here in California that is supposed to happen in about 2050
I am heavily involved in the rugby community. I have many friends from SA, all who live and work in the US as permanent immigrants. They are all white and more African American than any blacks I know in the US.
What do you mean by African American? Urban black culture or something else?
I'm guessing he means they are more both American, i.e. assimilated into mainstream culture and yet more African, actually having been born and lived in Africa.
I agree completely but I find it interesting that the only group that calls themselves "American" are people of European descendant. Natives are "Natives, Native American, or American Indian". Slaves of African decedent are "African American or black" and African immigrants are "Somalis, African, Nigerians, Blacks, etc". East Asian, Indians, Arabs, Mexicans, Latinos, etc are "[insert ethnicity] Americans or [insert ethnicity]".
That is why heavily promoting the term "European American" for all people of European descent. And the term "Mixed American" for those who don't what they are.
I disagree with that. We should not be separating ourselves into groups by racial class, that is degression. I believe we should accept that race is nothing more than a social construct and work to get rid of all discrimination in that respect. If we get rid of the idea of race, we will also rid ourselves of racism as well.
I would rather label everyone in the United States as "American" but at this moment I believe that would be just sweeping the dirt under the carpet and not actually cleaning it up.
I have an answer, because he's black. If you saw him on the street don't tell me you would think that he's white.
/skips whole thread
BECAUSE: if you had to point him out in a crowd, you'd say "The black guy over there."
Who gives a shit what color he is? Either you agree with his ideas, his politics and/or his vision or you don't. Get the fuck over his color people - Geez what friggin century are we living in.
/skips whole thread
BECAUSE: if you had to point him out in a crowd, you'd say "The black guy over there."
you would, maybe, not me.
I'd be more likely to say the tall guy with the funny ears.
you would, maybe, not me.
I'd be more likely to say the tall guy with the funny ears.
Since you mentioned it - DAMN He's got big ears!
you would, maybe, not me.
I'd be more likely to say the tall guy with the funny ears.
I'm responding to the thread topic. Nobody would say "The tall white guy over there."
/skips whole thread
BECAUSE: if you had to point him out in a crowd, you'd say "The black guy over there."
I wouldn't. Nope, nuh uh, not me. I'd point and say "that's the motherfucker! No not that one, the one next to him talking about 'change' every damn day."
Since you mentioned it - DAMN He's got big ears!
Since you mentioned it - Any truth to the rumor that he used to be employed as a radar dish on Guam?
/skips whole thread
BECAUSE: if you had to point him out in a crowd, you'd say "The black guy over there."
In Texas, yes, but in Philadelphia...not so much.
/skips whole thread
BECAUSE: if you had to point him out in a crowd, you'd say "The black guy over there."
Maybe you should read the thread next time. That's what I just said...almost verbatum.
What do you mean by African American? Urban black culture or something else?
I mean that all people of color, no matter where they are from in the world, like to call themselves AA in the US. It is wrong. More wrong today than ever before. We have so many immigrants from other parts of the world who have dark skin that are lumped into the category of AA. It is wrong. If it were not wrong why wouldn't whites from SA be considered for the perks given to any person of color who claims to be AA?
I have an answer, because he's black. If you saw him on the street don't tell me you would think that he's white.
I seem to recall him answering this question once with something along the lines of: when I am hailing a cab in New York, what colour do you think I am?
I mean that all people of color, no matter where they are from in the world, like to call themselves AA in the US. It is wrong. More wrong today than ever before. We have so many immigrants from other parts of the world who have dark skin that are lumped into the category of AA. It is wrong. If it were not wrong why wouldn't whites from SA be considered for the perks given to any person of color who claims to be AA?
*Chuckles* see now, Merc, I got all the way to the last sentence, and I was thinking you were coming at that from a really cool angle, and really it's about the 'perks'.
*Chuckles* see now, Merc, I got all the way to the last sentence, and I was thinking you were coming at that from a really cool angle, and really it's about the 'perks'.
Don't lose hope. That was only an example of how people are being treated differently when they should not be. If I had it my no one would receive any perks.
We'll leave it to Michael Jackson to be white....Obama is black. k? He is an African American, and so is my nephew. And you know how lily white my ass is...My nephew will always be seen as black, especially since he's always around people that are so damned white. No matter where he is he will look black. (unless it's pitch black outside)
My nephew is black irish in the real sense of the word. :) But black he is..and unlike Michael Jackson, hopefully black he will remain. ;)
He's my cute little mulatto. Who cares...he's cute. Mulatto is not derrogotary. He's black and white. Call him oreo if it makes you feel better. Because he's my sweet little cookie. :)
Yes, but if you dunk him in milk, is he less crunchy?
I don't know. Are you? Let's test and find out shall we? That's awesome....
I do hear that milk baths are great for your skin...So please test this out and report back your findings.
*Chuckles* see now, Merc, I got all the way to the last sentence, and I was thinking you were coming at that from a really cool angle, and really it's about the 'perks'.
Yeah, I don't see why everyone can't have coffee if they want it. Of all shades. I like mine with no sugar but a lot of milk. I guess Obama would be sort of like a latte. ;)
If I had it my no one would receive any perks.
What about "no bid" contracts?:D
Click Here For The Answer:
Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black
By Lewis Diuguid, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.
J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.
Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.
McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.
Shame on McCain and Palin.
What??? I never heard socialist referred to as code word for black. You?
Nope, not me. But then, I'm not as old as McCain is.
What??? I never heard socialist referred to as code word for black. You?
I have heard the term Demoncrat used for black people.
The more interesting point: Michelle is descended from slaves; Barack is not.
The more interesting point: Michelle is descended from slaves; Barack is not.
This was confirmed how?
The more interesting point: Michelle is descended from slaves; Barack is not.
This was confirmed how?
> > > > > WHO CARES?< < < < <
He's my cute little mulatto. Who cares...he's cute. Mulatto is not derrogotary. He's black and white. Call him oreo if it makes you feel better. Because he's my sweet little cookie. :)
Ummm.
Oreo cookie is a slang term used to describe a black person who "acts white" (black on the outside, white on the inside, like an Oreo cookie), often used in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (see List of ethnic slurs)
Of course, we now have a
US official calling Obama "uppity", so maybe it's time to change the definition of "acting white".
...like coconuts, bananas, and uh, marshmallows. :right:
...like coconuts, bananas, and uh, marshmallows. :right:
Marshmallows are white all over. That's a better definition for Zac Efron.:p
What's pink on the outside and white on the inside? My family always insisted that "whites" are actually pink.
Yo PEEPS. What's happenin'
What's pink on the outside and white on the inside? My family always insisted that "whites" are actually pink.
Not really, but most of the good parts are...:blush:
Were all pink on the inside. And red and white and some gray.
:blush:
Ummm.
Of course, we now have a US official calling Obama "uppity", so maybe it's time to change the definition of "acting white".
:D You can stick to your nick name definitions and I'll stick to mine. I can't wait for you to wikipedia chocolate chip cookie for me...How about fig newton? Can I not call him my little fig newton because in some strange culture it might be considered a sexual position? Probably, but watch me! He's my little fig newton, my little sweetheart!
plbbbt!
Rush Limbaugh is right: Powell endorsed Obama because of race
Rush Limbaugh has a point, and the liberal media ought to recognize it: Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama largely because of race.
"I thought it should be about race," Limbaugh said Monday on his radio show. "I thought you liberals thought this is a historic candidacy because finally we're going to elect a black guy to be president. Why hide behind this? Why act like it's not about race? What, you want to tell us it's about his policies?"
There's nothing wrong with conceding -- even if you are supporters of Powell and Obama -- that race had a lot to do with Powell's decision.
After all, black men and women across this country are going to vote for Obama in waves. Polls show it will be a majority between 90 to 95 percent.
So where does Powell fit in all this?
Sure, he's been the darling of Republican politicians for years. That's how he became Secretary of State in George W. Bush's administration, after all.
But Powell has always been known as a moderate Republican. And it's simply not surprising that a black, moderate Republican would come out for Obama.
Limbaugh wasn't the only one agreeing that race played a big part in Powell's decision.
In his radio show, Limbaugh played a soundbite from Juan Williams of Fox News, who said:
"Of course it has to do with race. It has a lot to do with this sort of senior black man, sort of the original crossover race star in American politics, Colin Powell; I think reaching out to this younger black man, and I think in so many ways it goes beyond race. But I think Rush Limbaugh's right, if he says race is a definite factor here. In terms of his legacy, I think this will stand as a real monument reaching out to the -- potentially, the -- first black president of the United States."
Powell's endorsement was important for Obama, but was not a game-changer. In fact, it was more expected than unexpected.
Go at it folks - I just put it out there for ya.
I like to hear what Juan has to say, esp since he is a regular on O'Reilly, but I don't think he can speak for Powell.
lol'd - never saw or heard anyone publicly admit that Rush was right err... correct I mean.
Rush Limbaugh is Right Wing
Fixed that for you.
lol'd - never saw or heard anyone publicly admit that Rush was right err... correct I mean.
Of course not. This is how wackos preach hate to their followers
I thought you liberals thought this is a historic candidacy because finally we're going to elect a black guy to be president. Why hide behind this? Why act like it's not about race? What, you want to tell us it's about his policies?
Liberals. Blacks uniting to take power. He is telling the wacko extremists to hate. Wackos are being told subtlety to consider 'kill Obama' concepts. Rush Limbaugh is about hate. He hates the French. He hates Arabs. He hates because hate makes the wackos more loyal to him.
Powell stated why he supports Obama. Powell is opposed to the wacko extremist party of the Republican party that has penetrated the McCain campaign and that put Sarah Palin on the ticket. Powell is opposed to the people that Limbaugh promoted for.
Powell only said in a politically correct manner what is really not disputable. She is too dumb to be a leader. But she is the kind of spokeman to promote an extremist agenda. The same people that Rush Limbaugh also speaks for.
Hate is a powerful tool for getting wacko loyalists out to vote - and to even discuss killing Obama. Rush Limbaugh inspired hate even forced John McCain to reprimand that rhetoric in his campaign rallies.
I was black once. seriously. I was.
I finally caught him, I knew it, RKzenrage is Merc.;)
Holy crap - lol - thats great Cic - you're on a roll today.
Now if you could just find Osama...
I am a black man. I am Joe the Plumber. I am a PC. I am merc. I am inclusive. Ok. Let's go beat up evil Santa Claus as any good Eagles fan would do. [size=1]Rush told me.[/size]
I am a black man. I am Joe the Plumber. I am a PC. I am merc. I am inclusive. Ok. Let's go beat up evil Santa Claus as any good Eagles fan would do.
WTF?
They boo'd Santa, didn't actually beat him up (although a few battery-laden snow balls may or may not have been thrown... you can't prove anything...)
As some of you have figured out by now, I tend to bait people to start lively debates. If you look in an earlier thread, you will see me (in a red shirt) and my daughter. Look again and you will see she is bi-racial
Sarge, I certainly thought it was a valid question. It points to our warped view of race, and all the ugly history that went with it.
We identify my daughter as Native American instead of white. Simply because she qualifies for some many programs not available to whites. Secretly, it has always bugged me because she was raised white and considered white by most people, but the government makes it advantageous for her to be a minority.
Sarge, I never for one minute thought this was a question asked by a racist.
But thank you for sharing an aspect of your life. I didn't notice that your daughter was bi-racial, only how cute she was (not being ostentatiously liberal here, American skin tones aren't familiar to me).
I know people are against positive discrimination (I know there's another term in the US but I can't remember it). But there is a part of me that believes in paying for the sins of the father - probably from my religious upbringing. I don't mean you of course - I mean the legacy of racism. And also because children of mixed race may well meet difficulty and discrimination, so why shouldn't they benefit from something they didn't choose?
I would like to see positive discrimination scrapped, but in the mean time it is legal and if it is being offered to decent kids with a good work ethic then take it with both hands. They can then make enough money that the rest of society benefits, and be role models and mentors in turn. The previous sentence applies to people of every colour.
I know people are against positive discrimination (I know there's another term in the US but I can't remember it).
Affirmative Action? Hardly positive.
Affirmative Action? Hardly positive.
Depends on where you are - If you are getting the handout, you may think its a good thing.
Hardly positive.
[shrug] That's just what it's called here. And it's technically illegal btw.
so back to the original question....
Because he says he is and feels he is. He has a black wife and black children. Who are we to classify him on how he looks?
maybe i look like a Christian. Must I be classed as one for political purposes?
Merc, all the black Brits I know here in US totally reject the African American label and get thoroughly annoyed by it. but not as much as they do by people who meet them saying "oh, i though't you were white". there is no Black accent and lifestyle in the UK. at least there wasn't until the teenagers decided it would be cool to emulate American teens.... :rolleyes:
as to "all one nice brown color"..... starts at 1;50 in (sorry, couldn't find it isolated)
[youtube]KnFrIAbcIZs[/youtube]
US is described as a "melting pot". It needs more heat.
Merc, all the black Brits I know here in US totally reject the African American label and get thoroughly annoyed by it. but not as much as they do by people who meet them saying "oh, i though't you were white". there is no Black accent and lifestyle in the UK. at least there wasn't until the teenagers decided it would be cool to emulate American teens.
I will have to think on that one. I think I will send your quote to some friends in the UK and see what their take is. Thanks.
btw, I loved the vid. Would love to see more, what is the name of the show?
I'm responding to the thread topic. Nobody would say "The tall white guy over there."
they would in detroit. except they might not be so polite as to say white.
I will have to think on that one. I think I will send your quote to some friends in the UK and see what their take is. Thanks.
btw, I loved the vid. Would love to see more, what is the name of the show?
harry Enfield and Chums
those characters are wayne and waynetta slob.
beest thinks you might enjoy 'kevin the teenager"
I loved the one when Kevin got laid, and grew up :P
we keep seeing kevin in our kids ....so funny
[youtube]dLuEY6jN6gY&NR[/youtube]
totally o/t, but may i introduce you to our 7yo, Thor....
[youtube]YJ7a3HGnS1I&NR[/youtube]
we really, really dread his teenage years.....
This is actually a two part question.
"Why?" is a question that man has been asking for centuries. The earliest man looked up at the night sky and saw the array of stars in the sky and the moon up above and wondered "Why?"
The greatest philosophers of their age pondered their deep thoughts and asked "Why?". Even our modern scientists who understand much of the cosmos still look at the complexity of the universe and say, "Why?"
This is such a deep question that we can't possibly answer the question in this venue.
As to the rest of the question, "Is Obama Black?" The answer is yes.
No human is black. Until they're dead and cremated. Obama is a sort of mid brown -but the born-like-that type of shade, not the sun/booth/spray type.
wait, what was the question?
My skin may not be black...but my heart is.
;)
I was black once, serious.
You know, this whole black thing gives me the shits sometimes.
Some people call my kids black and they're hardly more than mocha before they get their 'summer skin'. My kids call themselves black sometimes...and other times they call themselves white. Most of the time they don't care until someone says something nasty about them with regard to their skin colour.
Then there's my step mother who comes from the phillipines. Every time she goes outside she covers herself from head to toe because the 'whiter' your skin is, the more noble you are. She also thinks she should get fat and then she'd look rich. My Dad doesn't like that idea, so she doesn't get fat.
It's a difficult enough world out there without having to worry about stupid shit like that...and it's obviously confusing for kids.
So... if I go to the Phillipines I'd be mistaken for a millionaire princess?
I'll check with Slang before packing though ;)
When I went to the barrio, I was at celebrity status. They'd love you Sundae.
Here's a link to a very interesting Time photo essay on Obama's family. Takes a while to load, but I found it worth it.
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1834628,00.html?imw=YWhy does Obama state he is black, when he is as much white as he is black? Since he was raised by his white mother and grandparents, culturally isn't he more white than black??
Why doesn't he just say he is biracial? When I was growing up, the term mulatto was used but it is now considered demeaning by some.
When you take a half a glass of clean water and half a glass of mud and mix them together you don't get a glass full of clean water now do you?
I'd equate emma's post to that of the cellar. you have a normal post with an opinion (clean water) and then you add emma's post (mud).
why hate on emma? Emma is simply you and your ilk, drawn out to its logical conclusion.
Don't shoot the messenger!
:ducks:
I don't equate the OP with clean water. There are a few bacteria in there: who really cares what "color" Obama is? If we're boiling it down, that is. Pun intended.
Racist bitch.
How is that racist?
why hate on emma? Emma is simply you and your ilk, drawn out to its logical conclusion.
Don't shoot the messenger!
:ducks:
It's amazing how liberals with attack truth and intelligent thinking with something like racism.
Remember liberals you're the ones calling a half white man an African American.
totally o/t, but may i introduce you to our 7yo, Thor....
we really, really dread his teenage years.....
LOL. Again. That was great.
"we really, really dread his teenage years....."[COLOR="White"]You have good reason to dread them.[/COLOR]
:D
I don't equate the OP with clean water. There are a few bacteria in there: who really cares what "color" Obama is? If we're boiling it down, that is. Pun intended.
lol well put. i personally don't care what color our president is. what i care about is can he put a leash on the oil companies gas prices? oh and while we're at it lets let off on the fed and state taxes on gas too.
The problem with Emma's posts not being visible, is that it now looks like I dug up a two year old thread in order to call Cloud a racist bitch for no apparent reason.
lol.
The problem with Emma's posts not being visible, ....
A secret has been leaked. It been happening a lot lately.
lol well put. i personally don't care what color our president is. what i care about is can he put a leash on the oil companies gas prices? oh and while we're at it lets let off on the fed and state taxes on gas too.
Seriously. Who can afford to commute? It's ridiculous, and I bet there are folks who clear very little after driving to the the only job they are able to find. It's a bunch of hooey and it pisses me off: not just for me, but for the struggling poor who are just trying to work.
The problem with Emma's posts not being visible, is that it now looks like I dug up a two year old thread in order to call Cloud a racist bitch for no apparent reason.
lol.
Ha! We know better though!
Recently, a supremely ignorant Minister - Iain Duncan Smith - commented on the fact that although there were no jobs in Merthyr Tydfil (Wales) there were jobs an hour away in Cardiff.
Thus speaks a man who has never had to endure a daily two hour commute on public transport for minimum wage.
I'm all for getting people back into work - it's such a boost to self esteem and relieves the economy and all that. But Cardiff itself has 9% unemployment. Even apart from the fact that no employer of sound mind would trust a low-level employee who lived an hour away and depended on public transport, when they have plenty of local applicants. Even apart from the fact that during any period of bad weather, said employee would be sacked for non-attendance, and even in periods of good weather would probably be sacked for poor time keeping because you simply cannot trust bus services...
MPs who live closer to Parliament than Methyr is to Cardiff get SECOND HOME ALLOWANCE AND TRAVEL EXPENSES. Try paying your own travel expenses when you're a waitress in Cardiff. Try getting a bus when your shift finishes at 00.00. Try waiting on an empty street for a bus full of drunks. [Yes, personal experience - in London not Cardiff, when working in the West End]
And above all, try raising a family when you have to leave home well over an hour before your shift starts and get home well over an hour after it finishes. Yes, people do it because needs must, but given that the Tories are supposed to be the party of "family values" I really can't see how they could promote such a strategy.
I am pro-work.
My Mum worked any number of crappy jobs to bring money in.
I, myself, have had three jobs at a time, and as soon as I am employed (still waiting on that damn CRB) I will try to find a second job.
I do not support the idea of people living their whole lives on benefits.
But I do think ignorant public school boys raised by families with money and never having had to struggle to pay bills should get some proper education before shooting their mouths off. And I think they should look at all the policies they are promoting (that of mothers raising children and the importance of the extended family for example) before coming up with arrangements that they would find intolerant in their own lives.
Fire away.
Obama isn't black. He's green. I saw it on CNN this morning.
Obama isn't black. He's green. I saw it on CNN this morning.
One drop rule in his mind. He will never acknowledge his white roots other than a passing comment in a speech to win votes from the middle class. He is a study of Alinsky to the tee.
DENVER -- Brace yourself for higher gas prices.
The former president of Shell Oil announced Tuesday that gas prices are expected to rise to above five dollars a gallon by the year 2012. The reason is that the price of oil is expected to double by that time.
Oil industry analysts say prices have been rising nationwide for weeks and are already at more than $3 per gallon in many cities.
AAA reports that right now, the average gallon of gas in the metro area is at $2.75. Last week it was $2.69, and a year ago a gallon was $2.37.
The oil price information agency estimates that drivers will spend $305 dollars on gas this month. Prices are up nearly 14% from last year.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-expert-gas-prices-headed-to-5-122810,0,2961849.storyAnd with it, the price of everything else goes up. Now the oil companies and the futures brokers, have the greenies on their side, the sky's the limit.
Obama isn't black. He's green. I saw it on CNN this morning.
Time to fix the economy. Buy a new TV.
what i care about is can he put a leash on the oil companies gas prices?
Or you can deal with the real problem. Buy ten gallons of gasoline. How many actually move the car? Somewhere between one and two. More than 8 of those 10 gallons does nothing but create heat. Does nothing productive because gasoline at $7 per gallon is so rediculously cheap.
Want to solve the problem? Any car getting less that 30 MPG (the actual numbers) in local driving is a car onwer who wants to burn more gas for his greater glory. Anyone with an engine larger than 4 cyliinders loves screwing everyone for his own ego.
Deal with why more than 8 of every ten gallons is burned to do nothing productive. Otherwise, you (and we all) deserve prices exceeding $10 per gallon. Those who hate innovation are defined in that above paragraph. 'Drill baby drill' is a soundbyte for $10 gasoline. "More Ethanol!" since we so want to make things worse by ignoring the problem.
And with it, the price of everything else goes up. Now the oil companies and the futures brokers, have the greenies on their side, the sky's the limit.
If gas does go up that much then maybe our auto industry will see the light and either import or produce some of those very efficient diesel engines like the UK has. They have been getting well above 30mpg for years.
Now that low sulfur fuel is available they can, and still meet emissions standards. All those Europeans, even VW and Mercedes, had pulled out of the US market, because they couldn't do it.
And didn't the US auto unions block it as well, for other reasons?
I asked some time ago why 30 mpg is now considered great mileage. My 1990 CRX got about 35, but the HF version got near 50. We're being screwed. They can do better. Somebody's pockets would suffer, methinks, and better ours than "theirs" in their eyes. If gas prices keep going up I don't know what I will do. My VW gets about 30, so it's considered great mileage: I have a 300 mile total commute each week. This is the suxxors.
And didn't the US auto unions block it as well, for other reasons?
Why would they do that? That's doesn't make any sense, but if you've got a link to that I'd love to read it.:confused:
I will look. I believe it revolved around the UAW getting language into the bills that regulated what was defined as a "domestic" auto and then taxing those imports that did not meet that standard. Hence the Jap companies among others proceeded to open plants in the US that were located in Right to Work states and not where unions could not dominate. But due to the low price of gas in the US as well as the low standards for mpg efficiency, currently around 27mpg average, I believe, there was no incentive for them to make the same efficient engines that they have in their own countries.
This speaks to some of it but it does reference more in general terms "US Auto industry" rather than direct union offense. I can see from the article how they would have been on the same side of the arguments.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicle_impacts/cars_pickups_and_suvs/life-in-the-slow-lane.html
This references the UAW some.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv32n3/v32n3-2.pdf
This is a proposal to do direct imports of the complete cars and some of the roadblocks, little to do with the issues surrounding jobs but you could imagine the outcry if we imported significantly more fuel efficient complete autos built by Ford and GM overseas...
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/fast-tracking-some-good-cars/
Specifically mentions the unions...
http://www.bitbotters.com/47/why-americans-dont-have-fuel-efficient-cars/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051900550.html
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/635994
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/ns/business-autos/Yeah, I can see the UAW backing what they see as beneficial to their members, that what they do. At least that's what they should do.
As far as imported parts, that's the manufactures call, like the Big Ford Crown Vics that have dominated the police market. Ford arranged for a high percentage of the parts to be imported so it would be classed as an import and it's gas mileage averaged in with their other imports. Using the rules(law) to their advantage. But that doesn't affect the UAW very much, even if they had a say in the matter.
But like I said up front, keep in mind the UAW is first and foremost in the business of protecting their members, who are paying 2 hours a month. As least it should be... actually the first and foremost is to benefit the rat bastards running the show, then the dues paying members.;)
Kill off the UAW and things would improve.
Kill of the UAW and the workers would be more vulnerable to exploitation.
Kill of the UAW and the workers would be more vulnerable to exploitation.
Bull shit. The UAW time has come and gone. But I do understand you come from a Socialist POV. You are forgiven.
Don't be ridiculous, do you think the manufacturers are going to adhere to health and safety labor laws on their own? The day to day problems are not between labor and upper management, it's the first line management that try to cut corners. And often there's too much middle management between the two for good communication.
Yes there was some stupid programs going on for awhile, but the UAW didn't come up with these on their own, the companies were just as guilty.
The Germans give more money, and vacation, than the UAW gets here, and have done ok because they've funded those obligations.
I asked some time ago why 30 mpg is now considered great mileage. My 1990 CRX got about 35, but the HF version got near 50. We're being screwed. They can do better.
30 MPG is average to poor mileage. It was 1970/80 technology. But management (not union workers) were disciples of TheMercenary. Therefore routinely stifled innovation for their self serving purposes.
Japan, that does less innovation, prospered by putting inside their products technologies that were intentionally stifled by American management.
Meanwhile, so many consumers are so easily manipulated as to think 20 - and later 26 - MPG was great mileage. Mileage numbers would be much worse except that environmental protection (low pollution) laws required management to implement some innovations. Yes, environmental protection hyped by liars for making lower mileage was a reason for 30 MPG in 1970 and later cars.
I was driving a GM 5 speed in 1975. By 1980, GM has eliminated all 5 speeds. Innovation is bad - according to management.
For those outside the US - TheMercenary is hyping, almost word for word, a diatribe by wacko extremists such as Limbaugh. Same people who thought it was good when White House lawyers rewrote science papers. People with so much contempt for the advancement of mankind as to build the Constellation - a manned spacecraft disaster.
A 70 Hp per liter engine was ready for production in GM in 1975. That meant four cylinders replaced all big block V8s. But that also meant innovation and more union jobs. Only management stifled that technology to even create 1991 and 2008 bankruptcies.
Modern engines are twice as powerful and efficient as engines 30 years ago, but WE refuse to buy vehicles that could get 45 MPH because WE do not want small, light, unsafe vehicles that do 0-60 in 15 seconds and can't haul shit. A car company that builds them will be seen as cheap and inferior no matter how good the build quality. It is as simple as that.
"They can do better" and "they" do, but the Smart Car (41 mpg, $12k) is not considered "them" because it is not considered "us". "We" would not drive such a thing.
Our upper $ bedroom-community seems a perfect situation for such cars
and only 8-10 miles of 2-lane highway commuter driving.
The west coast distributor of Smart Cars was located in our town,
and a lot were seen on the roads around here.
The City even installed some curbside electric outlets for them.
Now...not so much, and I think UT is on mark about why we are not buying them.
My concern has to do with what happens in an MVA with all the other "tanks" coming down the road.
To expand on the stupidity are four wheel drive vehicles. The most dangerous moving vehicle in snow, ice, etc is the four wheel drive. Four wheels driving a vehicle means tires fight each other. It only means more traction to get started. And the most dangerous of all moving vehicles. But when told by a pretty bimbo on Action News that you must have four wheel drive, then a majority are that easily brainwashed.
Like the 260 Hp car (when 1970 big block V-8s only did 160), we *need* to waste more. Gasoline at $8 a gallon is so dirt cheap.
Remember when gasoline went from $0.85 to $2? Remember when so many said SUV sales would drop? Go back and read. One was warning about SUV sales not harmed. Especially those largest SUVs. Why? Gasoline at $6 still costs almost nothing. Do you think logically? Or as deceived as those complaining about prices increasing from $0.85 to $2? Gasoline is so cheap that the $1.15 increase was near zero. And now it is $3 per gallon - still absurdly cheap as SUVs - some of the most dangerous gas guzzlers - continue to increase market share.
Modern engines are twice as powerful and efficient as engines 30 years ago, but WE refuse to buy vehicles that could get 45 MPH because WE do not want small, light, unsafe vehicles that do 0-60 in 15 seconds and can't haul shit.
Which is what the dumbest anti-Americans were saying in the 1970s. To get 24 MPG, they said, we must all drive Pintos. Well my Honda Accord routinely exceeds 30 MPG even in local driving. And Hondas and Toyota are not very innovative.
The difference between an anti-American and those who innovate. The largest Cadillac could easily be doing 30 MPG. Only those trained in fear think fuel economy means smaller.
But again. Put 10 gallons into a car. Well over 8 of those ten gallons is wasted energy. Does nothing to move a car. Since only one in ten gallons does anything productive, then that must always be true? Yes according to myopia from business school graduates and a majority who believe their lies.
Why are we all not driving Pintos? In part, because the Pintos' 21 MPG was how the most myopic viewed a 24 MPG car. Largest Honda's and Toyotas routinely exceed that due to technologies developed in early 1970 in America. But those who said we would all have to drive Pintos were the wacko extremists and George Jr's of their time.
Did I really write MPH. I meant MPG. And I said 45 MPG, not 30; so even you, tw, have failed to make the choice of a higher MPG vehicle.
Perhaps you should consider the
Chevy Cruze... its engine does 98 HP per liter and gets 36 MPG highway. :eek:
To expand on the stupidity are four wheel drive vehicles. The most dangerous moving vehicle in snow, ice, etc is the four wheel drive. Four wheels driving a vehicle means tires fight each other. It only means more traction to get started. And the most dangerous of all moving vehicles.
I find it very hard to believe a reasonably intelligent engineer could be this clueless about 4 wheel drive vehicles.:facepalm:
I find it very hard to believe a reasonably intelligent engineer could be this clueless about 4 wheel drive vehicles.:facepalm:
If honest, you would have said why it is wrong. You cannot. So we have your cheap shot denial. Four wheel drives traction to get started. Once moving, its wheels fight each other resulting in less traction - especially on ice. Which is why early four wheel drives required the driver to get out and release the hubs.
But then the same bimbos who recommend four wheel drive also recommend those back saver shovels - that are the worst type of snow shovel for a back.
"Get out and release the hubs" is a perfect example of how clueless you are, that shit went out with sword-fighting and knickers. But even ancient setups with manual locking hubs, it's very simple. On bare pavement you use 2 wheel drive. On wet grass, mud, loose gravel, sand, snow, ice, anywhere the traction is iffy, use 4 wheel drive.
OK, with some setups you have to decide to shift into low or high range, depending on what you're doing and what surface you're doing it on, but it's not rocket science. Newer vehicles most people would have use for, don't even have low range, and the all wheel drive setups use viscous couplings and computers to make it a no-brainer.
I'll make it very simple, 4 wheel drive gives you better traction than 2 wheel drive on any less than ideal surface. duh.
Oh and don't tell me that 4 wheel drive can't stop any faster than 2 wheel drive in slippery conditions. Neither I, nor anyone who knows what the fuck they're talking about, ever said it would. So don't blame me for your perception, of the public's mis-perceptions.
While were at it, front wheel drive is generally better than rear wheel drive on slippery surfaces. The advantage of the engine/transmission weight over the drive wheels, is a plus. Losing traction intermittently, front wheel drive just slows, whereas rear wheel drive tends to skew the car under those intermittent traction losses. Again, we're talking about Go, not Stop.
Now in there anything else?
Oh, wait, cornering. Changing direction, you turn the front wheels and the vehicle follows. Front wheel drive pulls the vehicle through the turn, but when the surface is slippery, the lateral grip of the rear tires may not be sufficient to keep the rear of the car from sliding sideways (fishtailing). When rear wheel drive pushes the vehicle through the turn, if the surface is slippery, the lateral grip of the front (steering) tires, may not be sufficient to keep them from sliding sideways (plowing). 4 wheel drive is better at overcoming the low lateral grip on both the front and rear tires.
4 wheel drive is a large improvement over 2 wheel drive, when traction is tenuous. However it is not a cure-all, bad weather, driving solution, nor will it ever be a substitute for driving skills. Fuckups, will fuckup, no matter what.
There, laid out so even an MBA can understand.
"Get out and release the hubs" is a perfect example of how clueless you are, that shit went out with sword-fighting and knickers.
And still explains why four wheel drive causes less vehicle control. You had to release hubs because ‘always on’ four wheel drive decreases safety when moving. Obviously.
Either each wheel operates independently. And then tires do not fight each other. And then one tire that slips is the only wheel turning. So, four wheel drives interconnect all wheels so that all spin together. So that no one wheel spins with other not spinning. Wheels must be interconnected to that all wheels turn even when one slips.
All wheels interconnected means tires fight each other. But then anyone who knows before posting also knows that four wheel drive means tires fight each other - diminished control. But that is not in myths promoted by advertising.
Yes, four wheel drive means better traction when starting, as I said repeatedly and you agree. Because no wheel can be permitted to spin independent of others. That same interconnection makes the vehicle more hazardous when moving. Tires now fight each other when any one must spin more than any other.
Also correctly noted is the advantage of front wheel drive. Put numbers to it. Front wheel drive means 60+% of body weight on the traction wheels. Any increase to 100% has diminishing returns. Four wheel drive is 100% traction on the drive wheels. So that vehicle can get started. Percentage of body weight on traction wheels is why 60 to 100% is preferred. And why pick-up trucks have poor traction. (Pickup trucks must be filled in back to have traction.)
When stopping, only front wheels do most all braking - for all vehicles - two wheel and four wheel drive. On ice, the driver must decide whether to steer or brake. More braking means less steering. Same for both types - two or four wheel drive.
So that one wheel does not do all spinning, a four wheel drive must 'tie' all wheels together. That means a moving four wheel drive has less traction due to wheels fighting each other. That means front wheels must steer, brake, and fight all other tires for control.
Four wheel drive only to get started. And to have less control when moving. But you cannot tell that to an ego who is sitting higher than everyone else. Advertising told him he is invincible. And both angry and insulting when reality is posted.
Perhaps you should consider the Chevy Cruze... its engine does 98 HP per liter and gets 36 MPG highway.
Go back and read what I posted about the Cruze and the history of a Chevy plant in Lordstown OH that makes it.
On wet grass, mud, loose gravel, sand, snow, ice, anywhere the traction is iffy, the tires are fighting the surface more than each other. Maybe you haven't driven one in those conditions? I had the cheapest 4x4 pickup with no load and it was indeed miraculous in snow, including when turning. It had no differential and thus was dangerous in dry conditions.
Newer vehicles most people would have use for, don't even have low range, and the all wheel drive setups use viscous couplings and computers to make it a no-brainer.
[YOUTUBE]y1DG-P6oOGY[/YOUTUBE]
The main problem we have over here with 4 wheel drives, is that they are invariably used in inappropriate places and for inappropriate purposes.
I live in a tiny village; with lanes designed for single lane horse and carriage use. When I walk past the village school the place looks like a fucking 4x4 convention. Massive cars, using massive amounts of petrol, to ferry a small child the ten minutes it takes to get to school. Thereby making the roads significantly more dangerous for any children whose parents elect to walk them to school.
That's one of the problems with using rangerovers and landrovers in a built up, or narrow laned area: in the event that a child is hit, the chances of fatality are that much more if they're hit by one of these cars, which tend to have much higher bumpers and bigger grills.
Wow Jinx, that Jeep video is awesome! And points out exactly what's going on. All four tires have to turn at different speeds or not turn at all. In my truck that would have been impossible. Most excellent.
Same here Dani - not re the school (as they have a VERY effective reward system for walk/ cycle/ scoot/ car-share, which must be a nightmare for working parents) but the closer you get to London the more "Chelsea Tractors" you see. Sat in traffic jams, within the Congestion Charge area, carrier/ gym bags on the back seat and SPOTLESSLY clean inside and out. I could be wrong, the fit young lady driving could just have come back from Scotland and stopped off at the garage for a spot of OCD car cleaning. Or from driving along Blackpool Beach, or whale spotting in Wales. But the good chance is she (alone in her 4x4) has just been shopping and perhaps on a running machine.
It's not up to me to tell people how to spend their money, but it seems a shame when having it affects everyone else (ie those with money can ignore the spirit of the Congestion Charge because they can afford to, and are often found in bus lanes because they just HAD to "pop in and pick something up!")
I confess I would have two cars if I won the lottery. My town car (probably a Beetle or a Nissan Micra) for 90% of the time and my big fuck-off Jeep for bad weather and pulling people out of ditches. Each for its own time and meticulously cared for in between.
Oh and a driver...
Am I straying too far from the point now...?
Either each wheel operates independently. And then tires do not fight each other. And then one tire that slips is the only wheel turning. So, four wheel drives interconnect all wheels so that all spin together. So that no one wheel spins with other not spinning. Wheels must be interconnected to that all wheels turn even when one slips.
This is where you're fucked up, 4 wheel drive does NOT interconnect the 4 wheels to all turn together. 4 wheel drive is a misnomer, it's actually 2 axle drive. Each axle has 2 wheels (except dualies but forget them), and between the 2 wheels is a differential, like all cars.
The differential has three jobs:
•To aim the engine power at the wheels
•To act as the final gear reduction in the vehicle, slowing the rotational speed of the transmission one final time before it hits the wheels
•To transmit the power to the wheels while allowing them to rotate at different speeds (This is the one that earned the differential its name.)
So with 2 wheel drive, 1 wheel is actually powering the car, and with 4 wheel drive it's two wheels powering the car. Only certain race cars that operate on loose (dirt) surfaces, or only turn at slow speeds (drag racers), have a locked differential (called a spool) to turn both wheels on the axle together.
Now many (most?) 4 wheel drive vehicles use a limited slip differential on at least the rear axle. Either Eaton's clutch type (like GM's posi-traction), a ratchet type (like Ford's Detroit Locker) or the newer Torsen geared type (developed for front wheel drive cars) so that when the wheel powering the axle loses traction, the power is transfered to the other wheel on that axle. Newer (read high end, more expensive) systems, especially full time all wheel drive systems, use a limited slip differential between the front and rear axles.
Many 4 wheel drive systems, especially in trucks, are designed and built so the front axle turns a tiny bit faster than the rear axle. This is for straight line stability at speed. On loose surfaces it's not a problem, but on dry (good traction) surfaces it can cause increase rear tire wear. This is where that "wheels fight each other" shit comes from. Actually a couple of pounds difference in tire pressure can cause the same condition, but it's not a serious safety issue.
I live in a tiny village; with lanes designed for single lane horse and carriage use. When I walk past the village school the place looks like a fucking 4x4 convention. Massive cars, using massive amounts of petrol, to ferry a small child the ten minutes it takes to get to school. Thereby making the roads significantly more dangerous for any children whose parents elect to walk them to school.
This has nothing to do with 4 wheel drive, it's a social issue. Scandinavia is loaded (dominated?) by 4 wheel drive vehicles that are no bigger than the 2 wheel drive counterparts. Subaru, BMW, VW, Ford, Audi, Infiniti, Volvo, Mitsubishi, are some of the companies making 4, or all, wheel drive cars no bigger than the 2 wheel drive crowd.
Now the newer electronically controlled, viscous coupling, 4 wheel/all wheel drives sound like the perfect choice for being prepared. BUT, the reality is the are more expensive to buy, and to operate. More moving parts to buy initially, more shit to wear out, more systemic parasitic power losses, although the new systems have cut those losses to a minimum. Plus the fact that in more heavily populated parts of civilization, the roads are cleared pretty quickly, usually less than 24 hours (bare pavement in 36) in most cases.
Therefore, the cheaper/smarter choice, unless you do some serious off roading (damn few do), or you're a survivalist, is leave the 4 wheel drives to the EMTs, or people that absolutely-positively-have-to-get-there, and stay the hell home and have orgies, on the few days a year the roads are bad... or learn to drive in bad weather.
I might get of these, if they come in baby Pink :)
[youtube]fAg4DdXAp7Y[/youtube]
Like all vehicles, they come in anything you can afford. ;)
This is where you're fucked up, 4 wheel drive does NOT interconnect the 4 wheels to all turn together. 4 wheel drive is a misnomer, it's actually 2 axle drive. Each axle has 2 wheels (except dualies but forget them), and between the 2 wheels is a differential, like all cars.
Correct until you got to the part about "like all cars If it had a differential like all cars, then the only wheel that spins is the stuck one. So that other wheels will also turn, that 4 wheel drive differential must interconnect (lock) the wheels. Also called limited slip differentials. And more infighting between front and rear wheels.
When trucks had hubs, that interconnection was rock solid. If you drove that vehicle at 30 MPH, you could easily roll the vehicle. So that the today's four wheel drives do not routinely roll over, the differential is not locked as firmly. But all wheels must still be interconnected – causing reduce moving safety. It has a limited slip differential. That means wheels still fight each other. And also increase tire wear.
Why tire wear? Because the wheels on four wheel drive are constantly fighting each other. Increasing tire wear. Reduced traction and control at/above 30 MPH. The compromise. Reduce moving safety so that the vehicle can more easily get started.
Safety is secondary on vehicles designed to have less ground clearance than a Humvee and also be less stable. One icy roads, the last vehicle I want to be in is a four wheel drive where all wheels are fighting each other due to limited slip differentials and another interlock between from and rear wheels.
But those local gossip bimbos tell us to believe differently. As you noted, the limited slip differential is why four wheel drive wheels fight each other - causing less control and increased tire wear. That means less control and less safety. That means less braking and tires more easily losing traction during emergency manuevers. Same thing that increases tire wear also means less control when moving on icy roads.
Which do we believe? Advertising or reality? As DanaC demonstrates, a four wheel drive is not about needing to go off road. In most every case, it's about ego. And this myth that such vehicles are safer because they are higher, etc.
A nearby family suffered last week on the way to FL. She caught the left edge of the left lane on I-95 in SC. Because such trucks are so unstable, it flipped when it snapped back onto the road. Only the most unsafe vehicles with less stability flip more often. One of two kids were killed. These trucks are some of the least stable vehicles. Add four wheel drive to make them even less safe in inclement weather.
Like all vehicles, they come in anything you can afford. ;)
Yay! A baby pink Panda it is then!
On wet grass, mud, loose gravel, sand, snow, ice, anywhere the traction is iffy, tire wear does not occur.
last vehicle I want to be in is a four wheel drive
We suspected you had no actual experience driving one.
The Germans give more money, and vacation, than the UAW gets here, and have done ok because they've funded those obligations.
And do they have a UAW equivalent there?
I have owned a 4 wheel drive vehicle or truck since 1985. I would never be without.
Correct until you got to the part about "like all cars If it had a differential like all cars, then the only wheel that spins is the stuck one. So that other wheels will also turn, that 4 wheel drive differential must interconnect (lock) the wheels. Also called limited slip differentials. And more infighting between front and rear wheels.
Wrong. All cars have differentials. Most of them are "open", which means the power is transmitted to the wheel with the least traction. The "limited slip" differentials transmit the power to the wheel with the most traction. I have them in my 2 wheel drive vehicles. There's no "infighting" between wheels, the wheels take what they are given by the differential, and do the best they can with it. There could only be "infighting" if the power originated at the wheels... duh
When trucks had hubs, that interconnection was rock solid.
Stop right there. You're describing an ancient system, most popular with WW II vintage, military 4x4s, 6x6s and 8x8s. They used a locked front differential that was driven full time, with the front wheels connected/disconnected from the always driven axle, at the hubs. If the traction was good and they locked the front wheels to the axle, both wheels have to turn at the same speed, so trying to steer around a corner where the front wheels have to turn at different speeds, all hell would break loose. The hubs could only be locked if it was slippery, or you were going straight.
This system is extremely inefficient and expensive, because of all the moving parts that require power and are wearing out, even when not used to drive the vehicle. After the war, (the big one, WW II), they used a transfer care for the front wheels that could be shifted into neutral, but retained the locking hubs. Early smaller 4x4 trucks used this system, but as 4x4s became more popular with hunters, farmers, and snow plowers, this system was discarded for more efficient systems with limited slip differentials, thus ending the "infighting" between wheels.
If you drove that vehicle at 30 MPH, you could easily roll the vehicle. So that the today's four wheel drives do not routinely roll over, the differential is not locked as firmly. But all wheels must still be interconnected – causing reduce moving safety. It has a limited slip differential. That means wheels still fight each other. And also increase tire wear.
I've got news for you, every vehicle on the road has
all it's tires interconnected, otherwise when you turn the corner, your wheels might not. They might decide to stop at the tire bar for a recap. Seriously, they are all interconnected, the only thing that's different is the way the car decides which tires are better suited to moving the car in various traction conditions.
Why tire wear? Because the wheels on four wheel drive are constantly fighting each other. Increasing tire wear. Reduced traction and control at/above 30 MPH. The compromise. Reduce moving safety so that the vehicle can more easily get started.
You just don't get it, do you.:headshake
Safety is secondary on vehicles designed to have less ground clearance than a Humvee and also be less stable. One icy roads, the last vehicle I want to be in is a four wheel drive where all wheels are fighting each other due to limited slip differentials and another interlock between from and rear wheels.
Simple fact, if you are going off road, or through deep snow, you need ground clearance. When the traction is limited, I'm glad my 2 wheel drive vehicles have limited slip differentials, and an added bonus is on dry roads I can leave 2 big strips of burning rubber, which pisses off the tw types to no end.
But those local gossip bimbos tell us to believe differently.
Maybe the "local gossip bimbos" are aware of the many choices I pointed out to Dana, or maybe just trying to scare the people that shouldn't be driving anyway, into staying home.
As you noted, the limited slip differential is why four wheel drive wheels fight each other - causing less control and increased tire wear. That means less control and less safety. That means less braking and tires more easily losing traction during emergency manuevers. Same thing that increases tire wear also means less control when moving on icy roads.
You obviously didn't understand what I said or why. No wait, you probably did, but disregarded it because it doesn't support your campaign to demonize SUVs as the route/root of all evil, and 4 wheel drive as a symbol of SUVs.
Which do we believe? Advertising or reality? As DanaC demonstrates, a four wheel drive is not about needing to go off road. In most every case, it's about ego. And this myth that such vehicles are safer because they are higher, etc.
Uh, Dana's people were not going off road.
A nearby family suffered last week on the way to FL. She caught the left edge of the left lane on I-95 in SC. Because such trucks are so unstable, it flipped when it snapped back onto the road. Only the most unsafe vehicles with less stability flip more often. One of two kids were killed. These trucks are some of the least stable vehicles. Add four wheel drive to make them even less safe in inclement weather.
"Caught the left edge" means she drove off the road, and "snapped back onto the road" means she did exactly the wrong thing. I wonder if the kid was belted in? It's a shame she killed one her kids because she didn't stay on the road, and didn't know how to drive. Fortunately she can absolve herself of any responsibility, by blaming the vehicle. They have yet to invent an idiot proof vehicle, of any sort.
And do they have a UAW equivalent there?
I think they have some sort of workers organization, but they also have the advantage of the European culture of much longer vacations, and government supported health care.
I think they have some sort of workers organization, but they also have the advantage of the European culture of much longer vacations, and government supported health care.
Among other forms of social support which is among the reasons they are in so deep.
Mercedes or Germany?
Europe.
"Caught the left edge" means she drove off the road, and "snapped back onto the road" means she did exactly the wrong thing.
Cars do that without flipping over. But she was driving a vehicle so unstable as to often flip over. What is normal for everyone to do sometime in their life - left wheel goes off the left pavement edge - is only dangerous in vehicles that are also less safe in inclement weather.
Why is a vehicle designed for off road safer than one designed to not flip? Oh. An off road vehicle flipped because it went off road. Clearly the lady is at fault because she should have known how unsafe that truck is.
She only caught the left edge of the road. Only more dangerous vehicles would flip over and kill the kid. How curious. That flipping is most common in four wheel drives. So you blame the driver. How can that be if four wheel drive trucks are safer? If wheels that fight each other (as you admit they do) cause increased traction? Most dangerous vehicle moving down the highway in icy conditions is a four wheel drive. Its only advantage – getting started is easier. Even you admit its tires fight each other - increased tire wear. And now you say that makes it safer? Please. Eight years of George Jr logic was enough.
Reality does not change because tires that you say are fighting each other are also, you say, not fighting each other.
The truck flipped over and killed a kid because unstable flip even when only catching the edge of the road. A safe vehicle would not flip. So you blame the lady for doing what everyone at some time has done. Only unstable – as in more dangerous - vehicles flip. But that makes them saver on icy roads – your reasoning.
xoxoxoBruce - at this point I am only laughing at your spin. Tires that you say wear faster because they fight each other also so not fight each other. You are being comical - right?
Cars do that without flipping over.
Some cars do it, sometimes... So do SUVs, sometimes.
xoxoxoBruce - at this point I am only laughing at your spin. Tires that you say wear faster because they fight each other also so not fight each other. You are being comical - right?
I'll let the readers be the judge of that, loser. :p:
I'm not sure how the subject changed from 4WD to rollover accidents, but here is the story:
http://montgomerynews.com/articles/2010/12/31/ambler_gazette/news/doc4d18eb257b011461385270.txt
It only specifies 2001 GMC and so it was probably the full-time AWD Sierra.
The crash happened at 8 in the morning so we are guessing all-nighter to get to FL for Xmas and the driver fell asleep.
But what lesson is there? Whilst searching for the story I found
this crash story, in which the single driver does nearly the exact same thing: drives off the right hand side of the road, then over-corrects. And the vehicle, which is a 1997 Mercury, not a truck, does not roll over. Instead it flies into the median and hits a tree. Killing her instantly.
From my experience driving various vehicles, I would far rather be in the Sierra than the Mercury. And so would the occupants of the Sierra, none of whom were killed instantly (one died later), and one of whom left the scene without a scratch.
I'm guessing that if I were driving the Sierra I would not have over-corrected, but in the Merc I might have. The big bubble tires and high clearance on the truck mean you can handle being in the rough a little bit. I once nearly lost a Mazda 323, not because I drove it off the road, but off the 1" edge of an exit ramp. The skinny tires caught the edge and nearly pulled the wheel out of my hands due to FWD torque steer. Unsafe at any speed.
I'm guessing that if I were driving the Sierra I would not have over-corrected, but in the Merc I might have. The big bubble tires and high clearance on the truck mean you can handle being in the rough a little bit.
So why were failing Firestone tires causing so many rollovers and overcorrecting on big SUVs? And not on cars?
What makes crashes so deadly? Roll overs. Which vehilces roll over most because they are so danagerous? Four wheel drives that are too high, unstable, and that also have wheels fightinng each other. Facts are that SUVs are the most dangerous passenger cars. And need all kinds of additional safety equipment because they are so dangerous. The last vehicle an informed passenger wants to be in on icy roads is the four wheel drive. But that is not what most believe because a newsroom bimbo recommends four wheel drives.
Same newsroom bimbos also recommend those back saver snow shovels that are so bad for the back.
Car Guys were also discussing another SUV - a Jeep. Its steering so bad that a shock absorber must be attached. Without the shock absorber, the wheels can vibrate violently. Their conclusion was that Jeep's steering 'shock absorber' needed to be replaced.
No safe vehicle has such badly designed steering. Klick and Klack defined the Jeep's suspension as "barbaric". Of course. You don't buy such vehicles for safety. But it can be hyped 'safe' to those who know despite facts. They defined a Jeep' suspension and steering as barbaric.
So why is Obama black?
Same newsroom bimbos also recommend those back saver snow shovels that are so bad for the back.
:) And these:
edit: I always thought something similar to the jerk glasses (crossed-eye effect) would happen with those shoes with the springs in them. In a couple years there would be an epidemic of people walking around all wobbly-spring-legged, like newborn foals.
edit: I always thought something similar to the jerk glasses (crossed-eye effect) would happen with those shoes with the springs in them. In a couple years there would be an epidemic of people walking around all wobbly-spring-legged, like newborn foals.
No problem. Put magnets in those shoes. That will also cure cancer.
What makes crashes so deadly?
Without question, the most deadly aspect to all crashes, including rollover (involved in 33% of fatal crashes
cite) is driver behavior.
Front page of local paper showed some woman standing next to her overturned 1 month old Jeep Cherokee, hands on her mouth in utter horror. What happened? Dumbass slid off the road, probably thinking her big old SUV could do ANYTHING. SUPERCAR. No one else was anywhere near her. She got what she deserved. I think about my two week old car being killed by some dumbass, not because I bought a car that was the woman's equivalent to a penis substitute, and I don't know how to fucking drive. I wish I knew who she was, so I could laugh in her face (not really but man this is a hot button.)
Truth of the matter: very rarely are there real "accidents." It's usually some dumbass who thinks they are the world's greatest driver, omnipotent in the driver's seat of some behemoth that slides on the ice just like every other fucking car on the road. Making everyone else's lives miserable: the families of the people they kill, the people they hurt, the cars they demolish, the cats they make wait at home because their owner won't get home from work for 2 hours because dickface made a sudden lane change and caused an "accident." Being drunk isn't the only cause for vehicular homicide. Good old ego and stupidity can take seats next to dumbass drunk.
Good old ego and stupidity can take seats next to dumbass drunk.
I would say they occupy many more seats. They are the cause of many a motorcyclists death.
A cop once explained to me why SUV tailgate so aggressively. These drivers judge distance by how much you fill his windshield. If you car is below his hood, then you do not fill his windshield. So he gets closer.
18 wheelers are taught how to judge distance. And are held responsible for bad behavior. Rare is to have a 18 wheeler driving like an SUV. Two completely different attitudes.
And then that SUV driver 'feels' he is safer - to make things even worse.
But then Obama is black. Right?
Your generalizations betray your prejudice and ignorance.:rolleyes:
Your generalizations betray your prejudice and ignorance.
Yesterday morning a four wheel drive was coming down the hill. Drove across my lane, across the first home's front yard (took out the mail box), into a small parked car, and into the front porch of a second house. That front porch collapsed on top of the truck. Completely disconnected from the house. They had to climb out a passenger window. Doors would not open.
He was confused. Said he had four wheel drive on. Did not understand why he could not keep it on the road. A fireman gave him a funny look and walked away. Obviously as a 4x4 driver, he did not understand.
Amazing how many 4x4 drivers just know they have more control. Because advertisng tells them to know. When confronted by reality (wheels so fighting each other to even increase tire wear), four wheel drive owners only deny. And post no facts. Just silly comments such as Bruce's. Also called wasted bandwidth.
He took out a front porch that was across the front of that house. The homeowner has just refurbished that porch this summer.
He was in four wheel drive. A moving four wheel drive obviously has less traction and control. He could not even steer away from the parked car. He was using four wheel drive. It gets you started. And creates decreased stability and controls. But many know othewise because advertising and emotion says otherwise.
You aren't even smart enough to stop digging. :rotflol:
You should work for FOX news.
You aren't even smart enough to stop digging.
You mean you do not need your grave yet? I could have sworn that was you driving into that porch. Same attitude. Same denial. Well, since you are driving a four wheel drive, we will keep the grave open. Chances are either you or your victims will need it.
I don't own a four wheel drive, I don't need one. But if I did, I wouldn't hesitate to buy one because I know their advantages and their limitations. I've driven them all, from a WW II 6x6 and old school Jeep CJs, to the modern 4x4 trucks and SUVs.
You keep citing these cases of people fucking up because they don't know how to drive, and blaming on the vehicle/manufacturer/advertising, instead of where the blame belongs, squarely on the driver.
I would venture the people that don't know how to drive properly, are now the majority, especially in adverse weather. If you rent or borrow a car, do you need instruction first? Of course not, cars have become an appliance, as easy to operate as a microwave oven. Something to move you from point A to point B without thinking, or interrupting your multitasking.
Does J.Q.Public ever stop and think about how they are controling tons of material at lethal speeds, in close proximity to others doing the same thing? Of course not, they are to busy thinking about other shit other than driving.
Therefore it's highly unlikely they ever think about the coeficient of friction, or slip angles, due to changing weather/road conditions. Too busy worrying about they might be late picking up the cat at the kitty spa.
So save your descriptions of 4x4s wreaking death and destruction, there are just as many 4x2s doing the same thing, and for the same reason, the drivers.
I vowed that I would never ever buy an SUV, but I am starting to get really sick and tired of not being able to see the road ahead of me because I sit lower than practically everybody in front of me or I can't see if there is a car coming up the aisle when I'm pulling out of a parking spot because both vehicles next to me are huge. Also, the cargo space would be kinda nice. But I don't really want to get saddled with a gas guzzler, especially considering that they are talking about prices going to $4 or $5 again. I'm really torn...and Dodge has improved the 2011 Journey too! (I'm stuck with Chrysler products being my only choice...that sucks too.)
You keep citing these cases of people fucking up because they don't know how to drive, and blaming on the vehicle/manufacturer/advertising, instead of where the blame belongs, squarely on the driver.
So it was the driver's fault that Suzuki Sidekicks were rolling over even in mild testing by Consumer Reports. And it was driver's fault that Firestone tires were killing people. After all, driver's should not get in that situation. And it was driver's faults that Toyota SUVs were unstable if the computer bug did could not keep the vehicle from rolling over. And it was the driver's fault that cars without redundant hydralic brake systems were crashing. And it was the driver's fault that he could not see cars crossing his path (and then the government required side lights which stopped all those deaths).
Nonsense. All cars must be driven violently. And do not roll over. Only vehicles designed to be unstable, unsafe, and as cheap as possible are rolling over. At one point, one out of every four SUV crashes were a roll over. And one in every four roll overs killed someone. Obviously only SUV driver's are incompetent - your logic.
Then we have SUV that overrun kids 60 times a week. These vehicles are intentionally (and unnecessarily) designed to be so high as to roll over kids that often. But you know this cannot be true. Only the parent's failures permit a kid to run behind the SUV.
Only fools need unsafe vehicles for their personal glory and ego. Why is a HumVee so much lower and has much higher ground clearance? Army worries about a soldier's safety - not his ego. SUVs could be that much better. But then the ego trip would be missing.
Why is the Jeep suspension and steering 'barbaric'? Because it is good. We can blame the driver.
Yes, it is the driver's fault. He was so stupid as to be driving a four wheel drive in inclement weather. Any informed driver knows a four wheel drive is the most dangerous vehicle in icy weather. So you are right. We should blame the driver for stupidly driving a four wheel drive. Good luck getting any 4x4 owner to believe you. Denial is all part of the experience.
A higher center of gravity combined with a narrow wheel base was the issue with the Sidekicks.
What does that have to do with four wheel drive being FAR SUPERIOR in snow?
What is the relevance to that versus 2 wheel drive.
Ya know, just for fun I took out an explorer in the snow. Drove it in two wheel and then four wheel drive.
There is NO COMPARISON - zero, none, nada.
In four wheel drive it had infinitely more control than in two wheel where the rear was frequently fishtailing.
I would never own anything but a 4 wheel drive, and I don't even live where is snows. But I do live where is rains, and it rains a lot. And I hunt, and I use it to go to places cars cannot go. As classic stated there is NO Comparison as far as handling when road conditions are poor. The price of gas is no concern when it comes to my families and my safety on the road.
4WD/AWD in deep snow is a ton of fun. Rolling through 8" deep side roads with no trouble.
Yeah, but tw's only experience is reading consumer reports and the economist. :rolleyes:
I can't see if there is a car coming up the aisle when I'm pulling out of a parking spot because both vehicles next to me are huge.
Visibility is a real problem in parking lots now. The combination of vehicle heights and ubiquitous tinted glass make a very real danger. I park pretty far from store entrances deliberately so it's safer for me when I back out. More empty spaces around. Better visibility.
Driving on the road is less of a problem. Just follow at a safe distance, and you don't need to see around the car in front of you. Plus, when you follow at a distance, the big vehicles take up less space in your vision.
Visibility is a real problem in parking lots now. The combination of vehicle heights and ubiquitous tinted glass make a very real danger. I park pretty far from store entrances deliberately so it's safer for me when I back out. More empty spaces around. Better visibility.
Driving on the road is less of a problem. Just follow at a safe distance, and you don't need to see around the car in front of you. Plus, when you follow at a distance, the big vehicles take up less space in your vision.
Good points Glatt.
Hint.
Obama is not black.
Obama is 85% black because he was run down by too many 4WD SUVs.
Hint.
It doesn't matter.
To whom?
Okay, well let's take a different tack: why is it important?
Okay, well let's take a different tack: why is it important?
I guess because a lot of people have co-opted his blackness for their own purposes and to his credit he has generally resisted. But yet I rarely hear of him refered to as half-black, multi-racial would be more accurate. By rarely identifying the other part of his background he ignores it, with the rare exception of pandering to to the crowd when required. Again, to his credit he has done a good job of generally staying out of it, with a few exceptions.
In this context, race doesn't have a scientific definition; only a societal one. The definition of who is black is a legacy of our racist past, and generally means, as mentioned in post four, having any known black ancestors. Otherwise, the concept of "passing" as white would be meaningless.
I'm not sure that a move to "biracial" is necessarily any better. Is the black parent black by historical definition, the child is biracial, and from then on any decendants they have are biracial by the same rule with a new label that labeled their parent black? Is that better?
Not really better. Because it contributes to the notion of the "One Drop Rule". And I can't support that.
I suspect it's a lot simpler than that. He has met the world, and the world met him as a 'black' man because that is what he looks like, if we accept the general usage of the word 'black' to describe people who appear to be of African descent.
There is also a wider sense in which anybody who is not white, is met by the world as black.
That's identity level stuff. I say let the man figure out his own identity. It's one of the things people from a multi racial background have to get to grips with in a way the rest of us simply do not.
Yes, I'm still having trouble coming to grips with the Irish in me. :rolleyes:
I say let the man figure out his own identity. It's one of the things people from a multi racial background have to get to grips with in a way the rest of us simply do not.
He does not have that choice anymore. He became President of the United States.
Yes, I'm still having trouble coming to grips with the Irish in me. :rolleyes:
That is why we call your people IA's and give you extra special treatment for the great care you got in the work houses of Boston.:3eye:
He does not have that choice anymore. He became President of the United States.
I know. Which ...as a black man was one hell of a forward step.
I know. Which ...as a black man was one hell of a forward step.
Which brings us full circle, is he black or half-black?
And again: it isnt that simple. 'Black' isn't actually an accurate description for anybody. But as we know it is far more then a simple visual description.
According to my understanding of the term 'black' when applied to people, Obama looks like a black man to me. And that's the thing about looking black: the one thing it absolutely means is that you don't look white. he could stand there and say he is a white man: and nobody wuold see a white man. He can stand there and say he is a black man: and his appearance matches that. To say he is half-black carries with it the idea that he is half white: but it doesn't work like that. Never has.
Fair enough. If he would make an attempt to say that he is half white I think it would go a long way in bringing much of our country together on the issue of race. The thing is he rarely says it.
*nods* I can see how a more open recognition of that dual heritage might be a good thing.
Yes, I'm still having trouble coming to grips with the Irish in me. :rolleyes:
Use a little less lube next time.
Fair enough. If he would make an attempt to say that he is half white I think it would go a long way in bringing much of our country together on the issue of race. The thing is he rarely says it.
How do you think this will work? Obama has a press conference, and says "I am half WHITE." Half the people won't care and will find it gauche, the whities who do care will probably only care that he dare associate himself with the whities (uppity); the black folks who care will think he is dissassociating himself from his black heritage: but most people don't care.
So how will this bring us together on the issue of race? We'll have a sudden epiphany "OMG blacks and whites not only living together as one, but sometimes in the same body? Where have we gone wrong? I finally see it doesn't matter what "color" someone is."
I'd really like to hear your viewpoint on this: how it should be done and what changes it will effect.
Because, it is my belief, that only those who care about race to begin with want this to be an issue. As Dana said before: it doesn't matter. If it matters to an individual, I have to wonder why. The racist people I know will not change their feelings: they can't even get the fact that he is not muslim through their skulls.
But if your idea brings hand-holding and kumbaya, I'd love to hear how it should happen.
While we are not on the subject.
Monday is Martin L King Day. It is a US federal holiday
His birthday has also become something more...
What is the MLK Day of Service?
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said,
"Life's most persistent and urgent question is: 'What are you doing for others?'"
Each year, Americans across the country answer that question by coming together
on the King Holiday to serve their neighbors and communities.
The MLK Day of Service is a part of United We Serve, the President's national call to service initiative.
It calls for Americans from all walks of life to work together to provide solutions to our most pressing national problems.
MLK Day is a joke. But if it gives some of you an extra day off more power to ya....
MLK Day is a joke. But if it gives some of you an extra day off more power to ya....
A joke ?
How is it different than other federal holidays, such as Columbus Day or Veteran's Day, or any other ?
A joke ?
How is it different than other federal holidays, such as Columbus Day or Veteran's Day, or any other ?
Just a personal opinion. Nothing more. I don't get holidays off in my job so it is just another day to me.
So all public holidays are a joke to you?
No. Not all. Just that one and a few others. Like I said it is a personal opinion.
The meaning of them is lost on most people, they just care if they get another day off from work.
Yah I understand that it's your personal opinion. I'm curious about why you hold that opinion about that holiday and the few others you think are a joke.
Maybe because it's the third Monday in January, instead of the 15th.
Federal holidays, except 4th of July, and Christmas, the government has made most of them long weekends.
So people can Honor Dr King for three days instead of one? No, so people have three days to plan other things instead of honoring Dr King. It's not just this holiday, most holidays, have lost their meaning except a three day weekend. We celebrate Memorial Day and Labor Day by taking to the road, and killing more people.
Oh, and by putting mattresses on sale. :haha:
Correct. And more importantly I believe they are paid days off. No one cares why they are off, they just care that they get to be off.
Correct. And more importantly I believe they are paid days off. No one cares why they are off, they just care that they get to be off.
:lame:
It's disingenuous to try to duck the political and racial aspects of holidays.
Ummmm..., maybe saying Columbus Day, St'Patricks Day, or ML King Day is a joke in the wrong bar would be a reason to duck and cover.
It's disingenuous to try to duck the political and racial aspects of holidays.
Disingenuous for you maybe. I could give a rats ass about the political and racial aspects of any holiday. I just realize their celebration is done by a tiny minority of people, the rest just want their day off and could give a crap whose day it is or what it was created for.
/
Almost completely OFF TOPIC
Years ago we lived in Buffalo NY and listened to Canadian Radio.
They had a contest to create a new holiday for Canada.
The idea was to establish a holiday in late January to relieve the
boredom and hardships of Canada's cold winter days.
I don't know if the holiday was ever actually established.
But the name that I liked best was: "
Chinook Day"
It seemed completely appropriate because it generates images of good things to come.
1 (also
chinook wind) a warm dry wind that blows down the east side of the Rocky Mountains
at the end of winter and often melts all the snow on the ground.
2 (also
chinook salmon) a large North Pacific salmon that returns
from the ocean in Spring to bred in fresh water rivers and streams.
/Now
back to the current thread...
Google images for Chinook, the first page gave me 18 images...
16 of them are of the first thing that came to my mind...
/Almost completely OFF TOPIC
Years ago we lived in Buffalo NY and listened to Canadian Radio.
They had a contest to create a new holiday for Canada.
The idea was to establish a holiday in late January to relieve the
boredom and hardships of Canada's cold winter days.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Canuks, get me a beer bitch.
:lame:
It's disingenuous to try to duck the political and racial aspects of holidays.
Ummmm..., maybe saying Columbus Day, St'Patricks Day, or ML King Day is a joke in the wrong bar would be a reason to duck and cover.
Care to expound on your assessment that my comment is "Lame"?
Like I said I could give a rats ass about your perceived "political and racial aspects of holidays". Care to expound on that liberal BS?
Wait a minute...youthink it's liberal bs that Martin Luther King Day has 'political and racial' aspects?
Wait a minute...youthink it's liberal bs that Martin Luther King Day has 'political and racial' aspects?
Oh no, I am sorry. I could give a rats ass what anyone thinks about my assessment of it. Is that more clear?
That makes more sense yes.
Care to expound on your assessment that my comment is "Lame"?
Like I said I could give a rats ass about your perceived "political and racial aspects of holidays". Care to expound on that liberal BS?
No, enough has been said
Wait a minute...youthink it's liberal bs that Martin Luther King Day has 'political and racial' aspects?
I do believe he will avoid that reality. He does that with gottchas.