http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2eCFoafXkschlepporello wrote:I wish there was a little bitty car I could fit in comfortably and would haul everything I need to haul.
On of the funniest things I have ever heard. I sympathize with Wayne. I'm only 6'2" and there are very few cars I can drive without bangin my head into the roof.At a used car lot, on the other side of town
a liberal guy and a liberal gal buy a Yugo.
And they drive with pride...
...fifty miles-to-the-gallon and their knees on their chests...
This is kind of old, but I thought you'd like it.the elephant wrote:Everybody RUN! TAKE COVER!!!!
The generalities and stereotypes are falling from the sky all over this thread!
So, how do you feel about Jeeps . . . and those who drive them . . . ?
All vehicles should weigh EXACTLY 2,000 pounds. That way we would all have an equal chance of surviving! That sense of security of being able to look down on 'little bitty cars' I think fosters some sort of invincible attitude in certain individuals. Same goes for the 'high up' SUV's. The guys who really crack me up are the morons who put a 12" lift kit on their truck only to find that they still only have 10" of ground clearance under the axles! Duh!schlepporello wrote:
I like pullin' up next to little bitty cars.
I'm going to have to agree with Bloke on this one. If you need the capacity and utility, then you need it. My Silverado's 8 foot bed gets filled up on a regular basis, and not just with music equipment. And it hauls my boat from time to time. And my utility trailer.bloke wrote:
A truck is a TOOL - a tool that is used to CARRY and PULL.
Prejudging (aka PREJUDICE) of others' choices could also be categorized as foolish.
bloke "whose tuba gig transportation 'tool' is a 33 mpg '97 Ford Escort wagon"
See, Wade, the difference between you and (most of) the other folks I've known with Jeeps is that you USE yours for its intended purpose, and it suits all your vehicular needs. Most of the guys (and it's nearly ALWAYS guys) I knew in college with Wranglers bought them because they portray an image of rugged individuality, even though many of them had never even been on a gravel road, much less off-roading.the elephant wrote:That would be great, except none of my friends have Jeeps and none will ride with me in mine. They just laugh at me when I show up in it when it is covered in mud and I get out in my tuxedo for work …JCalkin wrote:Jeep Wrangler - I am fiercely individualistic. just like all my friends with Jeeps.
Of course, I got it because the streets here are so bad that my Volvo 740 and my Honda Accord have both completely blown out two sets of shocks in very short periods of time. (The brass quintet plays in some of the worst places in town as part of our Jackson Public Schools contract. Some of our streets are not even paved in some of these really bad places.)
Also, I got it because our parking situation for concerts is so bad that is gets coverage in the local fish-wrapper newspaper. I have gotten to work many times over the last 14 seasons to find that the ONLY available places to park legally within many blocks are far too narrow and short for a car. But the Jeep fits fine. Also, I can drive over nearly any curb or obstacle down there to get to a space. Frequently we have to park on the sidewalk. Driving over a nine inch curb and onto the sidewalk into a short, narrow space in my Jeep is never a problem.
bloke wrote:
Around here, this(along with an any-county-but-Memphis'-county license plate) might
get you a warning, rather than a citation.
Huh? In Pennsylvania? I work in and drive through Pennsylvania all the time, and while I believe that the state is Philadelphia on the east, Pittsburgh on the west and Kentucky in between, I have never, ever seen a confederate flag on display there. Had you said "Leading the way into the 17th century!" I would have been right there with you. But confederate flags?wchoc86 wrote: most of the people where I live (or maybe it is just my school) who drive trucks are racist, chauvinistic, and downright ignorant.
True, but meanings change, and I suspect that the greater percentage of the population now equates the Confederate flag with all of the negative things now associated with Southern states during the civil war era, i.e. slavery and general bigotry. Show a confederate flag to 1000 people on the street and ask what it represents and I'd be willing to bet that more than half would quickly answer "slavery", "racism", or a related idea.bloke wrote:
I don't own a Confederate flag (what would I do with it...??), but I refuse to allow someone else's claimed "offense" of it to ruin - in my mind - the original intended purpose of that flag and the original intended patriotic cause:
defiance in the face of tyranny
Hey shlep....this looks like it would haul most everything I would need....and there might be room for that rub too.schlepporello wrote:
I wish there was a little bitty car I could fit in comfortably and would haul everything I need to haul. Alas, there's the rub.
I never said that the confederate flag meant racism TO ME. Nor did I add the phrase "southern redneck" to anything I said. Through empirical observation, many of the people I associate with (me being from the north and having lived in all northern states: NJ, VT, NH, ID, IA, NE) confer that meaning upon the confederate flag, erroneously or not, as do (I suspect but cannot confirm) the northern folks who plaster the thing in their pickups' rear windows or decorative front license plates. I have tried to educate them all (the people I know, that is) but alas, I am only one man.bloke wrote:
bigotry and racism: It would be an enlightening exercise to find a "southern redneck" quote that - to you - seems to be ultimately offensive, and then compare it to the writings of A. Lincoln on the subject of race.
Having read a considerable amount on Lincoln I do know that his main goal (very nearly his only goal) was to preserve the United States in the form it was in when he took office, and not lose half of his country's land, which would have been politically disastrous.bloke wrote: southern slavery - an oft smoothed-over fact: Slaves in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA were not freed until AFTER the end of the War Between the States and until AFTER A. Lincoln's death. (Cross-check the date of the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment with the dates of Appomattox and of the Ford Theatre incident.)
It's not the words that are unacceptable, nor is it the images/icons/symbols/whatever. It is their meaning. When people say "gay", they are using terminology which to them means "homosexual" without being offensive. It is accepted as "safe" language because the people who use it (by and large) do not mean any insult by its usage. "Faggot", on the other hand, is used primarily as a derogatory insult by those who use it, it is interpreted that way by those who hear it, and the cycle is self-reinforcing.bloke wrote: faggot: still means the same thing: "stick". It is an extremely stereotypical description of the body types of homosexual males...in much the same way that "gay" is a stereotypical description of homosexual males' outward behavior...
...I continue to fail to understand, then, why "faggot" (an appearance slur) is unacceptable whereas "gay" (a behavior slur) is acceptable.
The concept of Oregon being "down south" is difficult for me to grasp. Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree with your post.Mark wrote:I want a $1 million custom RV/bus like the ones they build down south in Oregon. I want a giant tuba painted on the side of the bus. And, I want Curtis to pay for it (viewtopic.php?t=24843&highlight=).
