Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/)
-   MO Reader Feedback (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/mo-reader-feedback/)
-   -   John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/mo-reader-feedback/1398-john-burns-great-arguments-for-stupid-people.html)

ZR-7 09-27-2002 04:23 AM

Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People
 
Yawn...is right. I bet this gets the "hit" count up right before the end of the month. It's either "Harley vs Japanese," politics or...what's next - abortion? That should keep the ad rates just about right....



Philip

Holleywood 09-27-2002 06:07 AM

Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People
 
"the comments are poorly written" gimme a freakin' break! comments are written by john q. schmuck, i.e. YOU and me. last time i checked, that don't take no bachulatin' of inglish. (yes, that last bit was on purpose, you goobs.)

96sp 09-27-2002 06:35 AM

Re: John Burns; Greens and Grandmas
 
Speaking of the government our greatest concern should be the Greens and easy chair environmentalists that have never left the mall, taking away our off road riding areas. When they are done with that they are coming for the Harley pipes when they are gone they are coming for the rest of us that is the problem as I see it. "Do it for the children"

rsheidler 09-27-2002 07:28 AM

Re: Ya Got That Right!
 
When was the last time any Democrats, or any other group in this country, forced someone to have an abortion. The only place I am aware of forced abortions being the practice is in China. Is allowing my wife, my daughter or my sister the right to make her own moral choice on the matter shoving the issue down your throat?



It is the more extreme anti-abortionists, who would, for example, if my teen-aged daughter were raped and became pregnant, prevent her from having the option of terminating that pregnancy, who are trying to force their views on others.



In any case, abortion rights is not a left vs right issue -- there are a number of moderate as well as conservative Republicans who support Rowe v Wade, and at least several prominant conservative pundits (admitedly, libertarian-leaning) who strongly advocate abortion rights. Similarly, there is a large number of Democrats who are personally morally opposed to abortion, and quite a few who routinely side with the religious right on votes impacting abortion rights. Finally, it was the Supreme Court which ruled that a woman has the right to an abortion -- politicians of any persuasion had nothing to do with it.



As far as private schools -- I believe that government funding of private schools is, in fact, allowed in many places. That is what the whole Charter School deal is about. It only becomes an issue if the school wants to use tax funds to teach religious beliefs. If we open the door to funding say Catholic, Baptist or Seventh-day-Adventist schools, how to we not fund radical Islamic schools? Branch Davidians? Aryan Nations? Radical Black Muslims? Where do we draw the line?



I spent 13 years attending church schools, paid for by my parents, which they had every right to do. In this time, I was taught that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that Catholics and main-stream Protestants will, in thenear future, take over the government and that *we* would be imprisoned tortured and killed to force our conversion to Catholicism etc. While I respect the sincerity of these people's beliefs and strongly support their right to hold and teach them, I do not think it would be appropriate to spend tax dollars to teach them.



As far as "forced desegregation" of schools goes, this also results from Supreme Cort rulings in which the court found that the prior "seperate but equal" doctrine resulted in schools that were certainly seperate but far from equal. Whatever legislation has been enacted in this area is largely in response to the order of the courts. By the way, prior to the more recent hijacking of the party by certain extremist elements, such legislation was probably supported as strongly by Republicans as Democrats -- going back to Eisenhauer, who ordered the desegregation of Little Rock schools in the mid-50s, for example.



There certainly is plenty of room to debate the specific remedies, and to debate when it is time to move on. I at least partially agree with some critics who feel that affirmative action, bussing, etc may be enforced with too heavy a hand, that it may be time to start phasing them out in places etc.

Abe_Froman 09-27-2002 07:57 AM

Re: Why do I even bother......
 
Selectively? By your standards, I simply cannot use a quote by the founders and attribute to it it's plain meaning to support my argument. The quote I just stated doesn't even neccessarily imply that John Adams was a Christian or even religious himself, what he IS saying is that our form of government is designed for such people. Selectively? Sure, I selected a quote. It's meaning is clear and dead simple.



Again, look at what you're saying.....a 'significant' portion were not "Christian in an ordinary sense"....."Some delegates opposed...." Even you must concede that the large majority of the founders were in fact either Christians as we know today, or deists who believed in God and used the Bible as a tool for moral instruction. The atheists/agnostics were few, if any, and their beliefs were extremely marginalized. Furthermore, the idea that there was/is a God was the philosophical underpinning of their idea of our government ("endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"). Without such a belief, their position falls apart.



And again, I see no problem with "partisanship". It simply means that someone has acutally made a decision and taken a stand on an issue. Trying to get politicians to do that on issues today is like pulling teeth; they would rather confuse the issue and the electorate into voting for them.

v4bryan 09-27-2002 08:08 AM

Trolling for flames
 
Nice one! That'll get rise out of somebody who thinks you're serious. Try this one next " If they like spotted owls so much they can wipe their butts with one"; or, "this country was just fine until EPA came along". Ooh! Ooh! How about this one; "We should run this country like a business if we want it to work".



This stuff slays me-and we haven't even gotten into the whole "black helicopter/world government" thing yet.

rsheidler 09-27-2002 08:12 AM

Re: Why do I even bother......
 
Without getting into the question of the extent to which the founding fathers based the constitution on religion -- Eric addresses this pretty well -- my point was that the Republican Party of Ike, of Rockefeller, Romney, Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, even Bush Sr -- at least until he became Reagan's running mate had room for a much wider spectrum of political views, and was not obsessed with imposing a narrow interpretation of religious-based morality, which is clearly out of the mainstream of the general public. Certainly their religious views influenced their moral views, which influenced their politics, as did those of the founding fathers, the abolitionists who founded the Republican party, or more modern civil rights, anti war, environmental or other so-called "liberal" activists.



As an example, **** Nixon was a Quaker, but he did not attempt to impose traditional Quaker views on America -- if he had, he would have abolished the military!



My issue is not that conservative fundamentalist Christians are active in the Republican party, or even that they push for an agenda based on their personal moral values -- that is their right -- but my issue IS that the party apparently no longer has room for those with views outside this narrow spectrum.



BTW, the religious values of many of the founding fathers you cite were far removed from those of the Jerry Falwells of today -- probably closest to modern day Unitarians.

ZR-7 09-27-2002 08:29 AM

Re: Trolling for flames
 
ROTFLMAO!



Philip

KPaulCook 09-27-2002 08:43 AM

Re: Site content
 
Well said. I used to complain but someone pointed out to me how for 12/year its a bargain. Also Burns said a lot of the staff works pro bono. I have come to respect Burns because he challenges peoples (includeing mine) perceptions and beliefs. I agreee it is refreshing to see people engaged and expressing themself.

KPaulCook 09-27-2002 08:52 AM

I really am a Republican
 
I guess I am a McCain Republican. i.e.
[*]I don't care what you do in your bedroom it is non of my business so I am not part of the religous right.
[*]I believe in separation of church and state
[*] I believe in workfare not welfare
[*] I believe in the free enterprise system


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:42 PM.