The only time i use PC term is in the sentence: "Politically correct is an oxymoron. You are either political or you are correct." As for me, i'm correct.

Oohh the Flathead! Very iconic. No power though. That's why SBC became so cool.

Maybe I could make a flat-head doppleganger valve cover for a Coyote!

Agreed.

I had an 88 Vette (coupe, with the 4+3 manual trans) when I joined the Gulch. The Vette is now gone, as I am semi-retired and could not handle the steady suctioning of money for repair parts. I'd always heard "don't buy a 'cheap' Vette" but didn't take it to heart since I planned on doing all the work myself. I now believe. I still have my Camaro, though (78, t-top, 4-speed) and enjoy going to cruise nights. One of these days another Vette may find its way into my garage.

I'd love to see your split-window with a Ford motor, though I'd choose the more iconic flathead!.

One of the origins of this thread was that, while reading nsnelson's thread, I recalled hearing/reading that there was a 'tacit understanding' that "man/men" in the Declaration and Constitution meant 'white males'. I had a hard time finding any real solid data to back up this recollection (LOTS of opinions!). As you point out, the sources I did find were specifically relating to voting...but it is of note that the functional effect of the documents was in line with that more narrow definition.

Jan

Yeah, the nice 914-WRX I saw in GrassRoots Motorsports (I think) had beautifully flared fenders. I love the look of those cars, and the handling. This is a build I want to do. On the bucket list...

Since you a VetteGuy, I assume you have one. I used to be a Ford guy and just hated T-buckets and other Fords with small block Chevy motors. I have always wanted to get back at those guys with an old split window with a 5.0L Ford motor (probably a Coyote motor now), and "Powered by Ford" logo on the rear!

It may be, but I have to note that the arguments you are using refer specifically to voting only - not to the topic of general rights which was addressed by the Declaration. With respect to the Constitution (and its predecessor the Articles of Confederation) there was great debate over who would be eligible to participate. While there was general consensus over the definition as promoted in your citation of John Adams, I hesitate to constrain the Declaration to such, though I freely acknowledge that the Signers were all white, male landowners. It may be, it may not have.

I agree with that! With less than 100hp, my stock-class 914 had WAY more handling than power. To handle the power of an STI, I would probably want to flare the fenders for more tire (195/50s were a squeeze!).

I've seen a couple of 914's with Subaru WRX engines. Nice conversion. I have two STIs, and that powertrain in a 914 would be a rocket!

That is what it means now, blarman...but in the course of researching for this thread, I have found out to the contrary.

For your convenience, I will re-quote some interesting sources that I have used elsewhere on this thread:

I have found the following statement (history.org) in an analysis of voting procedures in the Colonies from ~1600 to shortly after our independence:

"Typically, white, male property owners twenty-one or older could vote. Some colonists not only accepted these restrictions but also opposed broadening the franchise. Duke University professor Alexander Keyssar wrote in The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States:

"At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it. The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation's inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their majority, and white males who did not own land.""

John Adams wrote in 1776:

"Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level."

Jan

Totally agree on the lug bolts vs studs & nuts! I ran autocross in a 914 (in the 80's) and did more tire changes than I can count. I think I cussed those bolts every single tire change, at least once! I wish I had found a conversion kit back then ...

"...latent paranoia..."

Love it. Have it.

Ha!

Jan

This is one of the reasons my wife (a linguistics graduate) doesn't like English. There are far too many similar words with enough nuance of meaning (and of which meanings have changed substantially over the years) for it to be a precise language.

I personally believe that when the Declaration of Independence was written, "man" meant mankind - not just "free white males". Thus the "man" used in that document would be gender- and race-neutral.

He has taught me eternal vigilance (another way of saying latent paranoia), measure-twice-cut-once, "every adversity carries the seed of an equivalent benefit" (also known as serendipity or finding the silver lining), and unextinguishable optimism. "If you can keep your head when all about you / Are losing theirs and blaming it on you..."

As for the meaning of "men", the passage in question was written before the alphabet soup of gender diversification came on the scene and defined everyone as equal.

This discussion deserves a separate thread.

Jan, interested but not currently of strong opinion

If I had the chance, my big Thank You would be a punch in the snoot for the galoot. If you get a chance to blindside him, smack him one for me!

Jan

Freedom, U need to look up the old WSJ's and do some real research before you throw stones, cause U R wrong.
My grade for your impression of your historical reading, understanding of relevancy, and accuracy is 1.82 of 4: Adams was head of the Federalists, who like the Democratic Republicans were American Patriots, the differing opinions being a plan for going forward. The Federalists wanted a strong but very limited Federal Government, the Democratic Republicans preferred a strong Federal Government but differed on the required strengths.
Statists, generally post Jackson though some existed as early as Madison and John Quincy Adams, created the "Career Politician" who parleyed political favor into pay to play and self-aggrandizement, using position and connections to accumulate wealth.

Clearly you've had the wisdom to turn adversity into learning moments. That Murphy! He has left his calling card all over my life. Every now and then I send him a thank-you note.

Exactly! Equality has been hijacked to mean equal entitlements. The concept of rights needs serious and persistent re-education too. I try to do my part when I think people are actually trying to have a real conversation and understand the world.

Interesting. It would be a good question to ask: What line or phrase of the Declaration is the personal favorite. I know that several of the lines can give me the chills when I read them.

Jan

wow, Michael. I always need to get a snack and a refresh on my cocktail before reading your comments :)

Pursuit of happiness...hands down

I do not think so. I think that the word meant mankind as differentiated from nobility or kings. Certainly, women and blacks were not considered sufficiently part of mankind to be eligible to vote.

Jan

Not something that is currently believed...

Jan, agrees with you