Motorcycle Forum

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

v4bryan 09-27-2002 10:51 AM

If it says what it says...
Then I guess only people who are part of a "well regulated militia" are afforded the right to keep and bear arms?

12er 09-27-2002 11:15 AM

Re: cracker???
Is Redneck a better term? Nobody I would want representing our country before the world would user terms like "Wheedled" and "Crawfished" to describe another leaders tactics. I am embarrassed for this country every time GW opens his mouth without a teleprompter in front of him. Hell, even then itÂ’s pretty bad.

JB- DonÂ’t raise too much hell or they will label you an Enemy Combatant and hold you without bail or trial. It would only take one "leak" to the media from an unnamed source to damn you to the ranks of a terrorist. Or did everyone miss that little law change?

Eric 09-27-2002 11:31 AM

Re: Why do I even bother......
You have no problem grouping all of the above groups together? Not only do many of them not get along, the logic for their causes all differs. The movements themselves are fragmented. You seem to be arguing that a liberal is someone with whom you disagree. Why do we even need the label? Anyway, true "liberalism" referred to economic liberalism in the 19th century or Kant's liberal perpetual peace. 19th century liberals were free traders (read your Milton Friedman, as any good libertarian and/or neoclassical economist should).

You are absolutely right that I don't refute that Adam's said that. You can find similar quotes concerning religion from Jefferson and Madison. Clinton said similar things while in office (Do you think he meant it?). My point is that you have to look at the collective works of someone to make a claim as to what they believe.

Have you actually read the Federalist? They, at times, contradict themselves. Have you read the views of the anti-Federalist? They are actually much more libertarian than the federalist were.

To argue that the Constitution was unambigous and that the founding fathers were unanimous is to ignore the disputes that began among the defenders of the Constitution themselves as soon as it came into effect. Madison and Hamilton became bitter rivals over disagreements in what the Constitution said! This is why we had Jeffersonian Republicans vs. the Federalist. This is why the Constitution was immediately changed to provide the separate election of VP and President as opposed to giving the VP to the first runner up.

I am an environmentalist, but I do not support all environmental groups or causes. I support limited affirmative action (not quotas -- did you know most affirmative action is simply advertising in media or recruiting in minority areas to ensure that minorities are aware of jobs), homesexual rights advocates have a point -- supported by some true libertarians, just like some libertarians agree with me on allowing choice (even while personally being opposed to abortion), some extremely religious people (like myself) can't stand the idea of the government having anything to do with my religion. I like guns, but I think there can be some limits on gun ownership, but certainly not an outright ban.

Every person is a walking contradiction. The founding fathers were no different. Take the writings as a whole. Read the entire debate surrounding the Constitution as well as the reasons some of the compromises were made. Read the debates the people who wrote those clauses had on their meanings a few short years later.

I agree some people distort the Constitution. I think Roe is questionable from a scholarly perspective, for example. However, to argue that their is only one possible interpretation of the Constitution or the way the founders understodd it is, to me, equally absurd. One way I think of it is this. If they were perfect, why did they get it so wrong the first time (the Articles of Confederation), and then, when they fixed it, immediately have to add 10 amendments (recalling that more were proposed, these just happened to be the ones that made it through the amendment process).

JohnGeisz 09-27-2002 11:52 AM

Re: Ya Got That Right!
Are you practicing writing papers for school?

It's amusing how purple you're getting about politics when somebody just brings it up.

Oh, and what do you mean "too heavy a hand..." you must be a dirty right-wing redneck. I'm calling Hillary.

johnnyb 09-27-2002 12:30 PM

Re: Would Egan, Cameron, Salvadori or others impose THEIR politics on their readers?
Too true, i just read that Egan column.

Hate to say it, but I detect in this little thread we've got going, a few people re-examining what seemed to be strongly held views coming into it.

kill_van_kull 09-27-2002 01:05 PM

Re: cracker???
yes, redneck is SO much better. is that the culturally sensitive euphemism for cracker? it's still a racial slur, even if it's still socially acceptable to use. i'll bet you don't use any of those kinds of terms when talking about nonwhites, even those you don't like.

by the way, wheedled is a perfectly fine english word that means to persuade through flattery.

vcs700s 09-27-2002 01:29 PM

Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People
Check with Progressive Insurance. They specialize in motorcycles and Geico doesn't. I found them to be much cheaper.

fizzchem 09-27-2002 01:41 PM

Re:How do you make a dolt post inane replies?
You've made your point with such clarity. Your logic is flawless, comparing a nation being invaded by the National Socialists with a ostensibly defenseless woman. Didn't the woman have the unassailable Maginot Line to prevent from further attack?

The original point of the discussion is that France is full of two faced ungrateful snail slurpers who lined the streets of Paris so that the Nazi Generals could enjoy the shade, and clearly would to this day.

As a final note to your revisionist history: The Nazis were socialists.

fizzchem 09-27-2002 01:55 PM

Re: Oh yes, you are the svengali of the internet!
Please stop.

That last statement is the height of pedantry.

One gets the feeling that you know as much about motorcycles as the average rider. You either have no knowledge to impart or the will to put the effort into doing same. Perhaps that's the real reason why print journalism has found little demand for your services.

Perhaps your columns were not well received because they contained little valuable motorcycle content.

It's a shame MotorcycleOnline (or even CycleWorld) hired you. I actually have been viewing these pages from (probably) the beginning. It's a shame its degenerated to press releases and poorly written 'The Nation' opinion pieces.

If you decide to cancel my subscription like you mistakenly did for KPaul, feel free.

johnnyb 09-27-2002 02:00 PM

Re: Oh yes, you are the svengali of the internet!
sounding a little BITTER out there fizzchem. I thought we was pals man, sniff... never mind then. Just me and sportbike pilot left to fight off the mongrel hordes now...

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:05 PM.