Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   MO Reader Feedback (
-   -   John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People (

KPaulCook 09-27-2002 08:54 AM

Re: A moderate Republican who agrees with Burns and Daschle
Excellent Post. See my post about being a Republican perhaps I need to switch because of the religous right thing. I don't know.

Eric 09-27-2002 08:59 AM

Re: Why do I even bother......
Again, you miss the point. I absolutely concede that the majority of the founding fathers believed in a deity (in fact, many were Freemasons -- many of them reflect this in their writings). That is not the point of my argument.

My point was on this board you often appeal to the founding fathers as if they were a unified voice, a voice you claim unabashedly supports your libertarian views. My point is that they were not. Most believed in God, not all were religious in the modern sense. Many (not all) were, in fact suspicious of any government involvement in religion. To say our society is based on biblical values does not mean that the government should endorse any particular religious view in its day-to-day operations.

My primary point, however, has to do with your general attitude. You say, "They are of the same ideological spectrum, that of people who base their ideas about government on historical fact and reason," about certain libertarians. This implies anyone who disagrees is 1) irrational, and 2) doesn't base their argument on historical fact.

People a lot more intelligent than you or I have reasonable disagreements not only on interpretations of history, but also on what constitutes historical fact. Why was this country created? You will get a multitude of responses depending not only on which historian you speak to, but also which "founding father" you read. The Constitution you claim to be so clear is the product of a massive compromise that satisfied few and was often left inentionally vague to assuage fears from those that vehemently opposed it.

My biggest problem with you, however, is that you seem to be a somewhat intelligent individual who indicates repeatedly that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant or unintelligent (see the above quote from you). That is simply not the case. I repeat, smart people can disagree.

Let me assure I do not disrespect all conservatives. My father and I disagreed vehemently on politics, but we each recognized that the other's opinions were well thought out and logically consistent. I do the same with my friends; living in TX and having recently moved from VA, there are many more people who would agree with you than me on politics. However, not one of my friends would ever call me "irrational" or "unintelligent," except as it applies to my riding of motorcycles.

rsheidler 09-27-2002 09:23 AM

Re:Public Education System at Work
Since the beginning of this branch of the discussion was in reference to the so-called "socialism" in France, it might be worth considering that it was not the socialist elements in France who orchestrated the surrender of Paris, it was the Vichy who were dominated by those right-wing industrialists who were largely sympathetic to Hitler, as were many of their ilk in England, and the US for that matter. The socialists, communicts, anarchists (and large portions of their version of the Mafia -- Union Corse) were main recruits to the resistance.

In any case, given the military supremecy of Germany, and the clear indication that they could not expect any aid from the rest of the world, surrendering without firing a shot, while not being romantic, might be rational. Would you call a woman who submits to rape by a man with a gun to her head a "surrender monkey" just because she did not resist? At least by submitting, she has the possibility of testifying and putting the bastard behind bars.

Putting all that aside, back to the original point of this branch of the discussion, regardless of how cowardly, evil or whatever adjective you may wish to apply to the French leadership of that time, there certainly is literally not a single person having any influence over current French policies who was even alive at that time, let alone in any way responsible for the actions of the French government.

I do not believe in blaming people for the actions of previous generations. Many of my Jewish and gay friends drive BMWs and Mercedes, regardless of Nazi Germany's treatement of Jews and homosexuals, and we drive Toyotas and Hondas and ride Yamahas and Kawasakis etc without regard for the horrible actions of the Japanese during WWII.

I do not accept the blame for slavery, the US treatment of American Indians in the 19th century or 1950's lynch mobs in Mississippi. Similarly, I do not blame modern Germans for Hitler, modern Italians for Mussolini, modern Spaniards for Franco, modern Turks for genocide against Armenians or modern Russians for Pograms or for Stalins purges. Similarly, I will not blame modern French for alleged cowardice in WWII.

TatdNPrcd 09-27-2002 09:35 AM

Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People

Eric 09-27-2002 09:42 AM

Re: Why do I even bother......
I forgot, as to your earlier point of providing specific quotes. 1) I waste too much time doing this already -- searching through my copies of the Federalist papers and early histories is not something I will waste time doing, and 2) lifting quotes proves little. The work of almost any writer must be taken as a whole. One example away from the founding fathers debate. Anwar Sadat, writing in the '40s and '50s, was a great admirer of Adolf Hitler. Were I to leave it at that, you would think it was because of his anti-semitism (Sadat was, at one time, profoundly anti-Jew). Yet, what Sadat liked about Hitler was that he stood up to the British and French as colonial powers. Not only would he later sign the Camp David accords, he also would identify with some Israelies for the exact same reason. Context matters.

twister299 09-27-2002 09:46 AM

Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People
If there are no new and exciting bike to talk about and you really want to rant politically, let try talking about issues that really affect motorcycling... HUMMM how about the raping we take from the insurance industry!!! I just found out the NEW FJR1300 is going to be classified in the same catagory as the GXS-R and BUSSA :-((( $1600 a year from Geico

and I'm a "experianced" rider discount.

The big trouble is that based on me one call (which could be wrong) the ST1300 is classified as a Touring bike insurance cost around $600!! Makes the $3000 differance in price not so significant. Now here is a political issure we all can get behind. I don't like taking it in the shorts because I want to ride the BEST!

rsheidler 09-27-2002 09:46 AM

Re: I really am a Republican
This is exactly what I mean when I have stated elsewhere in this thread that the right wing has hijacked the Republican party. Posters on this thread who assert that you must be a Democrat for espousing such views illustrate my point.

My parents who are in their mid-70s are rural, conservative, envangelical Christians who have been solidly Republican for as long as they could vote. In spite of the fact that many of their personal religious values and beliefs are closer to those of Pat Robertson than to mine, they have largely voted Democratic in the last several national elections because they are disturbed by the intolerance of the new right -- they did not have any problem with the old right, h aving enthusiastically campaigned for Barry Goldwater!

If the Republican party can alienate such a core consitiuency as my parents then they are clearly out of the mainstream.

When Republicans such as you, when when officials such as John McCain, are accepted as legitimate Republicans, I will have to seriously consider switching my voter registration. Until then, I'll just keep working within the Democratic party to try keep it from veering too far the other way.

rsheidler 09-27-2002 10:10 AM

Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People
Great Post.

The retoric about WMD is largely PR spin -- in reality, I believe the only real weapons of mass destruction currently in existance are nuclear weapons. Neither the US or USSR was ever able to come up with any effective means to turn germ, gas or bio-weapons into effective military weapons. Their main impact would be psychological.

If you want examples of real weapons of mass destruction, Pol Pot (as you cite) proved that bullets, knives and clubs can be pretty damned effective! Or, on a much smaller scale, but closer to home, jet airplanes piloted by suicidal fanatics are pretty effective, as is homemade explosives in the back of a Ryder truck.

Sadam Hussein likely has used bio-wepons or chemical weapons against his own people -- perhaps with good effect, and he might be able to use them against his immediate neighbors. I do not think we should let him pursue that course unimpeded. At the same time, he poses little danger to us.

I believe that the Saudis pose a much greater danger -- having been financing, training and providing moral support to Al Queda and their ilk at the same time as claim to be our allies.

rsheidler 09-27-2002 10:28 AM

Re: Would Egan, Cameron, Salvadori or others impose THEIR politics on their readers?
I agree that often Eagan's best work in in R&T, which is the sole reason I subscribe -- having only nominal interest in cars that I will never be able to afford.

However, I feel that his best columns (and those of some of his predecessors at R&T -- eg the late Henry Manney or John O'Keef) have very little to do with cars or motorcycles, or at least only use that as a launching point. This month's Cycle World column is a great example -- you would not have to know, or care, a damn thing about motorcycles to think it was great.

The response to your post illustrates that your audience has strong opinions and interests that go well beyond their opinion of the exhaust pipes on that new (semi) naked Kawasaki. Keep it up.

Abe_Froman 09-27-2002 10:32 AM

Re: Why do I even bother......
When I say "liberal", perhaps that term doesn't apply to you. When I say "Liberal", I mean those people that adhere to the leftist emotional-political worldview that emerged in the sixties. As an actual movement, that has died, but it has been resurrected in the growth of many fragmented interests that share the same side of the political spectrum (animal right groups, most environmentalists, the NAACP, People for the American Way, the ACLU, abortion rights groups, NOW, homosexual/alternative lifestyle groups, anti-gun groups, etc. etc....) These groups no longer from a cohesive single movement, but they frequently agree and often team up in particular causes. The one common theme among them is that the American,western way of life is evil and destructive, and they usually manage to point the finger of blame for any problem, real or imagined, at the white male. They displays poor reasoning skills and profound lack of knowledge of human behavior and history.

It is interesting that people always refute a hard fact or quote from the founders with an attitude like yours (it was vauge? it satisfied few?) You must have been there, because in the text of the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, it's quite clear. The records don't support that claim. It says what it says. Curiously, you didn't argue that John Adams didn't say it, or that he didn't mean what he said.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 AM.