Hey neanderthal:
Now that the six guns are holstered, what year is your 2002? Here's a pic of mine (sold in 2000 )

__________________
1982 Mercedes-Benz 300CD
1982 Mercedes-Benz 240D - stick

Kirk,
I am late to this party, but I have been impressed by the quality of your posts. You display a rationality here that seems to be missing from any threads that involve presidential politics.
I just wanted to be able to say something positive about you. I hope this doesn't light the fuze.
Michael

bj
mines a 1976, purchased from the original owner. new drivetrain (rebuilt engine) in 1999, everything from the engine fan to the propellor shaft. needs a new dash, seats and paint. i want E21 recaros in good condition, but i dont want to get raped as prices are just ridiculous at the moment. i did want to do a complete engine and interior out paint job, but since i have only street parking i keep it in its original faded verona red with primer front left fender and drivers door. its less of a target than if it was a shiny new red.

unfortunately i cant get it past smog right now, thats why i have a 124. (which needs a head rebuild )

actually it fails only the visual component of our smog test since the thermoractor, EGR valve and other assorted parts were removed (my me) at various times as they broke. im just not up to paying almost $1100 to get all that stuff and a tuneup to get my car to pass a test it already has passed.

im waithing for next year when it will be 30 model years old and i wont have to smog it.
future mods include upgraded suspension (urethane bushings, bilsteins etc) new carpet, new front seats (the recaros i mentioned) 5 sp overdrive, paint and early/ euro buimpers.

why did you sell yours?

__________________
'O=00=O'
bmw 2002.
long live the legend

Thank you - I appreciate that. I am really just trying to exemplify a different kind of citizenship. There is something very new emerging in our society that not all of us are quite aware of at this point. For most of us over the age of 45, the major source of the information we received as we grew up that concerned how we looked at national issues came from only three television networks and a hometown newspaper who all printed information from only two different wire services.

Television began to replace newspapers as the primary source of information for the average American. Every major news story had to be condensed into a few sentences so they would all fit into a half-hour newscast, and in response the papers started condensing everything so the story could be stuffed into the first paragraph, reducing newspapers to the 8th grade level.

In addition, the only way any of us could participate in this information system was to write letters to the editors, or participate in a protest of some sort that might make it on the airwaves. The only critical examination of the issues came from so-called "analysts", or as my Dad like to call them "anal-ists". In the 80s and 90s that began to change with the introduction of cable television to just about every household in this country. At this point we at least were able to hear more sides of the issue, but again no major change in how we participated in the critical examination of what was being fed to us.

The first major change in all of this was the advent of a new use of an older technology, AM radio, in the early 90s. Unfortunately, it was discovered by only one side in the debate, but for the first time average people could participate in critically examining the issues.

However, on AM this was and continues to be done in an incomplete way and undemocratic way, and in a format whose main purpose was to give support to the "host's" point of view. Calls are heavily screened, the host has the option to simply hang up on views he doesn't like and then ridicule them after the caller is off the line and unable to respond, an anonymous voice never heard from again. In addition, it suffered from many of the same limitations as TV - the host had to fit the callers into a fifteen minute segment between commercials, so none of the callers had the chance to go much beyond sloganeering or quick advancement of outlandish conspiracy theories, which the host could let stand if he wished.

The host on the other hand, recognized good AM ratings came from his manipulation of a single human emotion - outrage - and that is what he presented, and his critical examination of the issue never went much beyond that, and it has evolved into a medium where outrage is the only thing they now sell. Listen to the hosts, they "tired of this", they are "not going to take much more of this", etc, phrases like that adnauseam. The only thing on the menu is red meat. Politicians on the right began to recognize that this medium could be used to mobilize voters and the big players in this medium have become as powerful as the politicians themselves within the right wing faction.

The left was not only late to the game, their history made them ill-suited for this medium. While the right was dominated with business people full of mass-media marketing savvy, who knew how to combine outrage-politics and entertainment into a marketable package, the academically based left wing intelligentsia came across as boring twits as they played the old anal-ist game taking callers without a screener as they tried to have a "democratic" radio show, resulting in black helicopter nuts screaming at them after a thoughtful presentation of the facts. They just never got a good hook on outrage, to the point they are now relegated to FM PBS, which none of us really listen to unless we are stuck on the hiway between Houston and Phoenix. The end result of this phenom was the takeover of Congress by the rightwing in 1994, and a complete upending of the Roosevelt coalition that ruled this country for 60 years. AM-radio driven Mass Media democracy entered the stage, and dominated thoughout the 90s, giving Clinton nothing but misery.

Enter the Internet. The rules of AM radio and TV mind control no longer apply. There is no host, there is nobody to hang up on anybody, and outrage is only one of the emotions that can be expressed. People on the forum do not have to argue from viewpoints they have distilled from three networks or two cable news giants, they have at their fingertips every conceivable set of facts and every conceivable analysis of those facts. No more AM radio single-sided issue control, no more TV mind control, for those savvy enough to use it.

Those who bring the AM radio sound-bite based ideology to the Internet table expose themselves to being cut to ribbons by someone who has an in-depth view of the facts that can be immediately presented. A false assertion, left to stand in AM land for the political purposes of the "host", is shot down in seconds on a forum like this. It is also purely democratic - anyone participating is as able to refute me as I am them. It is revolutionary - we have moved from the non-participatory TV age, to the one sided shallow one-emotion AM radio days, to a medium where we are all equal to present ourselves on an equal playing field in the arena of ideas. The results are revolutionary, in the process of examining and supporting and discarding ideas, we have some hope of actually discovering the truth, and we have the means to logically justify what we believe. We also are free to not have to particapte in debate - the computer gives us the ability to review the arguments of others if that is all we wish to do.

The democrats, thanks to Howard Dean, are early to this game. The last few times I listened to Hannity, Savage, and Rush, they were literally telling their listeners to not participate in Internet forums. Savage said "real Americans don't own a computer". Limbaugh says "you should get you opinions only from me". Hannity says "don't listen to that Internet crap. Just listen to me 3 hours a day, that's all the information you need." Actual quotes.
If those are not advertisements for mindlessness and ignorance I don't know what is. They also show AM is losing its grip.

I think the Internet will greatly influnce this election, because this media does something the AM radio media does not - it appeals tremendously to people who actually vote. I try my best to exemplify this new paradigm. I admit it can be upsetting to some people to have an opposing view thrust into their face by someone who vehemently disagrees with you, but that is how democracy is actually supposed to work.

The left was not media-savvy in AM radio, which meant they missed the boat on a new model of participatory democracy. Hollywood only drives part of the media. New York is the orginate point for "conservative" media, hence the market-driven sophistication of the AM radio product. Dems totally missed the boat on it.

Hollywood has not been a participant in the march of electronic mass media participatory democracy. They are not part of the evolution I am trying to portray. Art influences politics in a much different way than debate does.

Murdoch was already mega-rich when he entered the US market. His background is English right-wing tabloids, which he made his fortune in before he came here. That is all actually beside the point - I am sure you are right in how you say he came about. My point is he is just a part of the evolution of the old TV mind-control paradigm, and like soap, was just selling a different brand of non-participatory mind control that gave one set of people a cleaner wash.

AM radio is dominated by one particular message because it fits the right wing establishment well. Corporations, barred by law from purchasing political advertisements, can run a 24/7 commercial for the Republican party, cheap, and stay just on this side of claiming they are not funding political speech. As a result, they made millions in capital available for this idea. Limbaugh, who deserves tremendous credit for pioneering this medium, recognized that as much as he did the potential AM had as a vehicle to harness outrage into a political force. The thing that makes it all work, is that it sells. That's not a conspiracy theory, its a description of the convergence of forces that brought this about - corporate willingness to finance, a talented entertainer, and a huge segment of the population seething with untapped outrage over how they perceived they got screwed in the world that emerged from the '60s. My position is that this is a world that is going the same direction the 3 network world did. They'll still be around, but their infulence will be diminished to the point they have no political power, as the Internet brings people to the realization they can determine their own information paradigm.

Its too bad your fascination with that one point makes you miss the point of the post.

Guess the original owners of Fahrenheit 911 did not see the bottom line right. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

Also makes one wonder why the investment capital does not seem to be there for "Air America". AM radio is Corporate America's way to get around campaign finance law. It works. If we enforced those laws the way we should, it would all go away and AM, which was on its way to the trash heap anyway, would resume its disappearance act. The last thing corporate America is going to do is make capital available for leftwing AM, for the same reasons they tried to torpedo F911. They know where the bread is buttered.

In the two markets they have been able to find financing in, they are becoming top rated shows. Tell me, do I not exemplify a potential market? I have absolutely no choice on the radio dial for politcal talk than the national and local right-wing radio fascists. None. How is my market being served? Am I the only one in the whole city who wishes I didn't have to listen to it?
Also, I travel across the Eastern US three or four times a year, and as often as possibe I try to arrange it so I can drive my SL. The only thing unpleasurable about it is that what is true in Houston is true everywhere. With the exception of a few college stations with a range of about two miles, it is a national barrage of this stuff, with nothing else. You cannot tell me, that in the 150 million people served in those markets I drive thru, that this is the only thing people want. Understanding what is going on here is understanding the politcal role that corporations are assuming in our society, a role they have always been barred from serving. In essence, they are financing a self-serving political viewpoint, propagandizing on a 24/7 basis, supporting a single candidate for President, Bush. It does not entertain and inform as a primary purpose, it exhorts the people to vote for this man, and condemns his opponents. If that is not corporate participation in elections, I don't know what is. It is illegal in my viewpoint, and did not come about solely on the basis of market forces.

I had to buy a vehicle capable of hauling horses around. I sure do miss it though. It was all stock, and even had the factory installed ac in it (that worked!), "frigiking" or something like that. Good luck with yours.

__________________
1982 Mercedes-Benz 300CD
1982 Mercedes-Benz 240D - stick

Jim,
I don't think I have ever disagreed with your eloquent and thoughtful posts, until now. While it pissed me off to think that Disney refused to distribute F911, they own about half the land in little Bushland (Florida) and were protecting their bottom line from the political retribution that would surely have come. They even said as much.

LK1,

I stand corrected. I forgot what is allowable in certain parts of the USA. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

Ah! A guiltless one among us. Do you have a cult of some sort? Church of the Forbidden Hijackers, is that you? I've seen your web site. You must be the one in the white robe, holding the lamb.

Back to the tips for single guys, eh?

We must all remember the "Three F's of Business" and other rules to live by:

"If it Flies..... Floats..... or F**ks..... Lease it.