Picking excerpts out of context from what I have said in the past and then stringing them into a whole different reality is what lawyers do to win their case with the unknowing. Good job.
I never said people in the cold portions of the country are racists like you impugned to me. Rather, my point of that thread was that when all the spoils in this country go to the top, that creates misery at the bottom of the ladder, and then racial tensions become inevitable, and more so when the weather is so cold that their lives are more at risk. If a state is run well and its citizens are active participants in the political process and watch closely what their congressmen are doing and whose interests they are really serving, and vote accordingly, there would be less problems in that state. The other point was that if you see your job for which you are trained going away, maybe it is time for you to take the initiative to retrain yourself to be more useful to people that are hiring. Self driving trucks and cars are coming, for example, so if you drive a truck or cab, maybe it is time to invest in yourself and get retrained for something else (but I still have my doubts about how fast they will really be here). I don't think it is necessarily government's responsibility to bring back jobs that are obsolete anymore. That was what I was trying to say about the need for good schools, a good economy where, as in California, taxes on the wealthy are higher to represent their fair share, and everything just works better. I posted an article that I saw today, based on thoughts of a Bush administration official on global trade, that echos much the same thoughts as I have had if you care to look at it.
No I am not a fan of cold weather, but I also realize there are folks that hate hot climates and never ending traffic, so they hate California and Arizona, for example. And I realize there are folks that love the change in seasons and less crowds, and snow, skiing, etc. It never bothers me one bit if someone doesn't like California, as I am a proponent of living where you like it best. But if you are so bothered by my reaction to the midwestern climate in a couple posts in the past, then my apologies if my comments sent you over the top. I didn't say anything about the climate in the post you used to attack me.
I never worked for Chrysler that long, as I hired in as a student in the Chrysler Institute of Engineering in 1969 and they paid for and put me through grad school. So I was never there long enough to even think about being promoted to managment. And I really had no illusion that any manager would even care what I thought - I was just pointing out my observations from a historical perspective. What bothered me the longer I stayed was watching poor decisions by managment that brought a once great company that I loved, eventually to bankruptcy. If you don't build a good car, you won't succeed and you can cut costs only so much before you lose customers. Chrysler went into bankruptcy for two reasons - poor managment decisions and out of control unions.
You say you have worked on a lot of Chrysler products, OK, so why is it that even though the many cars I have bought over the years (mostly 1969 - 73), which have been low mileage rust free cars, that the electrical systems have a bunch of problems on every one of them: failed power window switches and motors, failed head light door motors, failed blower switches, power seat switches with buttons broken off, 3 speed wiper motors that won't park, rheostats that either won't allow the instrument panel lights to come on or to be dimmed, clocks that never work (my forward look cars even have clocks that worked for a long time), electric door lock solenoids that never work, radios and tape players that don't work, auto temp systems that were nothing but a nightmare, - need I go on? This stuff failed early on and just sent customers to other manufacturers' cars. I found it painful to see all this going on, and then with the formals the number of complaints that were coming in due to lean burn systems and poor reliabilty of the electrical related systems were out of control. California even made Chrysler recall the 318 - 2 bbl cars in 1977 because when they did confirmatory tests on them for emission compliance, they routinely stalled 4 - 5 times in trying to run the CVS compliance test around 72F and couldn't even complete the tests successfully. The task to fix them fell on me since the proving ground told me flat out "California is the land of fruits and nuts, so who cares about them" So I did the best I could with the stuff the proving grounds released to production for California so Chrysler could still sell Aspens and Volares etc. but my bosses didn't want to spend a dime to really do it right. Some folks on this site have asked me in the past to express some of my observations on the demise of the company from my first hand experience. However, this apparently for some reason troubles you. You don't have to read it if you saw it once before. I like books like the one on Exner that helped tell the story of what really went on back in the day and it seems others do as well.
You apparently are easily angered and have to unleash it for some reason on me, but I am confident you will find someone else to rail on in the future, and then mess up this site like Moparts since you said you were familiar with getting people banned from other sites because they were so negative. And you
did imply that my comments were offensive enough that maybe I should be banned. Your attacking me will not deter my freedom to express my thoughts in a respectful and considerate manner, as I have done on this site a long time now without being railed on by anyone like you that just has to stir up the pot unnecessarily for reasons unknown to me. I really will not reply to any further postings by you on this subject. I would rather just move on.
Bush economist warns: Be 'very afraid' about globalization's next phase
Holy **** Batman, this place just turned into Moparts!
