Jump to content

Borg warner

Members
  • Posts

    3,647
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Borg warner

  1. 53 minutes ago, Schmidt Meister said:

    I love this 1940 Ford Custom 4-Door pickup that was at SEMA 2022 BUT I would have to get rid of those butt ugly wheels ... just .. damn !!!

    1940 Ford Custom 4-Door - SEMA 2022 - 1.jpg

    I agree withe the wheels. I'm old school and have never liked the big rim/thin tire look. But as far as the truck itself, while I can appreciate the quality of the workmanship, I really don't like 4 door trucks of any kind. Also, unless the Trucks had different grilles than the cars for 1940,, this truck  looks to be a 39 rather than a 40.

    • Like 2
  2. 57 minutes ago, minervadoe said:

    Of what was to become "The Big 3" in the automotive industry, the 1928 Plymouth, Ford and Chevrolet all had similar engines. Flathead inline 4 bangers.

    1928 Plymouth 170 cubic inches 3 5/8ths x 4 1/8 bore and stroke 4.6 lbs compression 45 HP
    1928 Ford   200 cubic inches 3.7/8ths x 4.125 bore and stroke 4.3 pounds compression 40 HP
    1928 Chevrolet  170 cubic inches 3 11/16ths by 4" bore and stroke 4.5 pounds compression 35 HP
     
    I think the reason those early engines all had such low compression is because most cars were crank start back then.
    • Thanks 4
  3. She thought America was Racist, Homophobic, and unworthy of any sense of patriotism by it's citizens.  I wonder now that she's living in a Socialist paradise if she'd rather be back in America.

    But in the final analysis, This is how much I care:

     

    cartoonfucks.JPG

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
  4. 3 hours ago, Mrs.Cicero said:

    So my youngest daughter just got hired full-time at the oil /gas/water well servicing company.  She thinks the boss was a little bemused that a girl wanted to do that sort of work... and she'll be the only girl in a 43 man shop.  The boss told her that in the 50+ years the place has been in business, there have only been two other women work there (outside the office) - one was his sister and the other his floor manager's wife.  She doesn't understand why most people don't want to work outside in the winter, because she spends her time slogging through the pasture and doing farm chores here in all weather, and she likes it.   I think he felt better when she told him she was a farm kid and didn't mind weather.  It's her first full time job (she's 19, and has been working part time at a small engine repair place for the last 3 1/2 years).  She was pleased at the pay rate... but her dad told her to wait until she met Mr.FICA to be that happy about that, lol.  She's sad she won't be able to do her part time job except on Saturdays anymore, though, because she loves her boss there.  And she says she'll have to make knitting dates now with his wife (the Mrs taught her to knit a couple years ago, and they get together 3 times a week to knit together after her shift in the shop.  Basically, her boss and his wife have spoiled her as the grand daughter they never had - all their grand kids are boys.  I hope she likes her new workmates this much...

    Anyway, she reminds me now and then that not all of whatever we're calling the post-millennial kids are a waste of oxygen, and do actually have a work ethic.  

    You did a good job of raising that girl and you've made the world a better place in doing so.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
  5.  A fundamental truth, eloquently and succinctly stated and routinely attributed to Edmund Burke. But I've recently learned that supposedly Burke never uttered these exact words. 
    However the essence of the quote can be traced back to philosopher John Stuart Mill, who delivered an 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews and stated:
     
     “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.”
     
    I like Burke's version better.  It's like what was said at the end of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance":  When you have to choose between history and legend, print the legend. 
    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  6. 16 hours ago, Eric said:

    The headlights are a bit much, but that is a good looking truck. 
     

     

     

    8672D358-F88C-406C-891A-55AFD4908E87.jpeg

    Beautiful Truck indeed and I like the wheels but would prefer a dark Red, Maroon, Blue, Green, Purple or even Black color. Anything but Yellow or Orange.

    • Like 1
  7. 1 hour ago, DAKA said:

    Another ASSWIPE    Off my list...

    I actually like some of his music and I've seen him play live with an excellent back up band. But a  lot of talented people in the fields of entertainment and sports are total arseholes so it's no surprise that he's just one of many who sucks as a human being but excels in one very specific area of his life and for only a relatively brief period of time.

    • Like 2
  8. 10 hours ago, Ricordo said:

    Placed a couple of for-sale ads on a statewide internet gun trader. For face-to-face transactions in beautiful, downtown Land O' Lakes.

    Last night, someone sends the cryptic message..."Is it (are they) available?".

    I replied this morning, "yes, they are".

    Ten minutes later, the "buyer" answers, "Sorry for the delay in replying. I'm a FFL dealer in Dallas, TX. Either send them to me after being paid or also we can do it through  an FFL of your choice, after you get paid, of course. What's your shipping costs?"

    Scam....or Not Scam?

    One Winner will receive the grand prize of  one doublestack Wendy's cheeseburger. All conditions apply.

     

     

    One Winner will receive the grand prize of  one doublestack Wendy's cheeseburger. All conditions apply.

    Before I submit an answer, can I get cash in lieu of the Wendy's cheeseburger? :confused:

    • Haha 1
  9. Here's my favorite Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. I don't know what year it was created, but Sam Waterston stopped drawing Calvin and Hobbes in 1995 and this cartoon predicted the future of "woke" education in the next millennium.

     

    cartooncalvin.jpg

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1
  10. 3 hours ago, railfancwb said:

    Good comic strips can convey more information in three or four panels than a good columnist can in three or four pages.

    This could be why Millard Fillmore and later Dilbert were dropped by some newspaper families. 

    Correction: Mallard Fillmore. The main character w3as a duck. I'm a big fan of comic strips. When I was a kid and I used to visit my Grandparent every year, my grandmother would save Little Abner comics and a couple of other comic strip from all of the previous year. and then in th 60's I loved the Zap Comix.

  11. An excellent article making the all-important distinction between scientific THEORY and scientific FACT. It amazes me how the Left gets away with making the two things interchangeable and how they get away with it because they control the media and rely on the ignorance and gullibility of the general public. For example Critical Race Theory is now being taught in our schools, openly calling it a theory but presenting it as an absolute fact.
     
    Scientism: A Dying Faith?
    Carlo Lancellotti The American mind.com  11.17.2022 
     
    Appeals to “The Science” increasingly come from political actors whose real concerns lie elsewhere.

    Little needs be added to Aaron Kheriaty’s clear and cogent discussion of scientism and its role in our culture. I would like just to raise, and briefly try to answer, a question that Augusto Del Noce himself raises in his book The Problem of Atheism. After pointing out that secularism (“atheism”) always tries to justify itself either by claiming the mantle of “science” or by promising political liberation, he asks: “which one of them takes priority?” Scientism or (as he calls it) “politicism”?

    Looking at European history, he argues that in most cases scientism was embraced for political reasons, and therefore was a subsidiary argument.

    One wonders whether this is true of the U.S., where trust in scientific and technological progress has been a dominant cultural feature for a very long time. Arguably, technocracy became the governing philosophy of America’s ruling elite no later than in the years following World War II—if I had to choose a symbolic moment, I would probably pick the transition from the Eisenhower to the Kennedy Administration. One could argue that even at that time the “transition to scientism” had political motivations in the context of the Cold War: science and technology were viewed as the “Western” response to Communism, and more generally to the totalitarian ideologies that had ravaged Europe in the 1930s. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the intellectuals, social scientists, and policy makers of the 1960s sincerely “believed in science.” Indeed, as Del Noce observes, “an ideology can certainly be used by political operatives who no longer believe in it; but it can only be born based on something in which one believes.”

    But is that really the case today? As Aaron’s book documents so well, the American establishment certainly still uses scientism as its ideological instrument, but does it fully believe in it? Or is such belief now just “for the masses,” much as Christianity was supposed to be by 18th-century European aristocrats? Do politicians, corporate leaders, and opinion makers really let “science” direct their politics, or is it more the other way around?

    It seems to me that in recent years, after the financial crisis of 2008, the election of Donald Trump, and then the pandemic, the political side of secularization in America has taken absolute priority, and has completely turned “science” into its maidservant. This is proved by the amazing degree of tolerance for incompetence that people display when a “scientist” is on the “right” political side.

    The pandemic has produced many examples of this, and so do the controversies on gender or even climate change. The constant politicization of science proves that in the last analysis we no longer take it too seriously, and that our deepest concerns lie elsewhere. Scientism is still held in theory, but it is clearly at the service of political passions that stem from completely different beliefs. In this sense, I suspect that the “technocratic age” of American history may be coming to a close.

    This observation, of course, does not impinge in the least on the validity of Del Noce’s and Aaron’s key observation: scientism remains a key ideological tool of our ruling class, and serves its totalitarian impulses. But politics reigns supreme, not “science.” In fact, as Aaron also points out, real science suffers immensely from politicization. When science is burdened with questions and needs it cannot address, and cynically used for political purposes, people will lose confidence in the scientific process, and scientists themselves will no longer be able to investigate nature as nature requires to be investigated. Politicized science cannot be good science and will lose the public trust.

    More generally, I think that after dominating the culture for decades, the technocratic mindset has fallen victim to the “cultural desert” it has created. By reducing education to technical training, replacing philosophy by psychology and sociology, discouraging “unanswerable” questions, promoting legalism and technicism, it has prepared its own death. The death of technocracy is taking the form of a combination of politicization, incompetence, and institutional decay.

    In fact, at this point more than by technocrats we are ruled by what I like to call idiocrats: people who do not know much about anything, but exercise power by exploiting the cultural and ideal void created by scientism and technocracy. They satisfy people’s cravings for drama, imaginary enemies, adrenaline rushes, cheap ideological narratives, hot takes, fake identities, feelings of moral superiority. They all “love science” of course! But hopefully many people are starting to see that the man behind the curtain has lost control, and the future belongs to those who will be able to fill the post-technocratic void.

    Carlo Lancellotti is a Professor of Mathematics at the College of Staten Island and a member of the graduate faculty in Physics at the City University of New York.    
    • Thanks 3
×
×
  • Create New...