Motorcycle Forum

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

rsheidler 09-27-2002 02:38 PM

Re: Speaking as a good partisan citizen
Let me get this straight -- as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, the pinko/commie/socialist frogs/dagos/krauts who populate western europe are more socialistic as well as more pro-eco than Gore -- bu that logic, biking in Europe must really suck.

Having lived there (and, by the way I now live back in the USA, by choice) I can tell you there there are plusses and minuses (speaking from a biker perspective only, for the moment). Gas might be $5/gal, bikes more expensive, modifications more restricted etc, but on the other hand, there is little or no bull***** enforcement of speedlimits, there are great roads, you can go into virtually any restaurant wearing your full leathers without being thought a freak, car drivers are skilled and courteous to bikes (bicycles too, what a concept). Yeah, can't possibly imagine how businesses such as Lotus Tours, Eidelweiss etc can stay in business offering bike tours of such a ****ty place! All that regulation has certainly crippled the European motorcycle industry -- I hear Ducati, Aprilia, MV, BMW MZ, Triumph etc will soon be reduced to making only electric scooters and mopeds.

Eric 09-27-2002 02:45 PM

Re: A moderate Republican who agrees with Burns and Daschle
God forgive me, I haven't disagreed with KPaul once on this subject! Maybe the sausage king is right and I am an idiot.

rsheidler 09-27-2002 02:55 PM

Re:How do you make a dolt post inane replies?
>>The Nazis were socialists<<

The National Socialists can call themselves whatever the eff they want, don't make it so. I have never heard an informed person make the claim that they were remotely "socialist" as that term is generally defined. Most of the socialists in Germany (of which there were many in the period between the wars) ended up in the Arbeitslagers next to the Jews and homosexuals.

rsheidler 09-27-2002 03:07 PM

Re: Oh yes, you are the svengali of the internet!
Hey Jonny -- I thought YOU were supposed to be the "Bitter Little Man" -- guess you have some competition.

rsheidler 09-27-2002 03:23 PM

Re: Trolling for flames
Now if we can just come up with a way to tie Burns, black helicopters, Harleys and abortion into one thread, we'll really rack up the hits!

Yamahanian 09-27-2002 05:08 PM

Re: There you go again!
I will repeat my previous point - liberals typically cannot persuade the populace to embrace their programs by passing legislation or referendums. Instead, liberals impose their beliefs by litigation and the threat of funding withdrawal. Since your continue to raise it, abortion on demand is a perfect example.

The law of abortion - prior to Roe v. Wade - was governed by state law. The people, through their popularly elected state legislators, had determined that abortion was generally bad. Instead of democratically electing new legislators who were pro-abortion and repealing/modifying the state laws, pro-abortion forces shoved this issue down our throats by successfully litigating the issue. But lets be clear about this. The Supreme Court enacted/legislated a new Constitutional Right of abortion in Roe v. Wade. It exists because the Supreme Court says it is exists, not because you can find it in the Constitution by reading it.

Turning to school choice, the line concerning government funding of religious schools is drawn (albeit fuzzily) by the First Amendment. The law is unsettled at best, but we can both leave that issue to the Supremes.

The real issue in school choice is government funding of non-sectarian alternatives to traditional public schools, such as charter schools, etc., where there is no religious component. And here you are demonstrably wrong - government funding of private schools is an on-going battle between the NEA (fronted by the Democratic Party) and parents who want a better education for their kids than provided by the local public school. Often these battles are based on inner city schools, which statistically do a lousy job of educating.

You spent thirteen years in private school paid for by your parents. Presumably they spent that money because they thought the public school wasn't up to the job. Are you a limousine liberal, or are you willing to extend the same private school privilege to an inner city youth whose parents cannot afford private school? Regardless of your answer, the fact remains that the preferred tool of the liberal is the court summons rather than the ballot box.

More generally, what is popularly referred to as "political correctness" is nothing more than liberal bias being shoved down our throats. Any conservative opposition is branded racist and viciously suppressed. Not buying this? Just try to publish an ad in a campus newspaper critical of any liberal shibboleth (abortion, affirmative action, gay lifestyles, women's rights, heavy taxation of the rich, the evil of corporations, etc.). Let me know how it turns out.

Just for the record, I am not a member of the Republican party but rather an independent. I do not agree with everything Republican, but I will admit to generally being more conservative than, say, Al Gore and Chuckie Schumer. I think both parties are lying to the American public (Social Security reform, for example).

What irritates, though, is the preconception and labeling that passes for political thought and dialogue (Burns take note). There are rich corporations whose leaders happen to vote way liberal - Silicon Valley and Hollywood come to mind. There are black conservatives who oppose affirmative action. And there are certainly black liberals and rich white conservatives. Except for truly Constitutional issues, I would just prefer that the debate on whatever the issue of the day is be decided by the ballot box rather than by court order. I believe that's called democracy.

MrCrashHappy 09-27-2002 05:13 PM

Re: John Burns; How Does He Get That Helmet On?
It never ceases to amaze me that the people most willing to use the epithet "stupid" are invariably those who are most abysmally unaware of the depths of their personal ignorance.

I would respond to the silly little article, if it wasn't so monumentally devoid of intellectual value as to be worthless in every point.

Three items are glaringly obvious by their bankruptcy: trying to impress truly educated folk with the fact that Burns is a failed law student, the absurd contention that President Bush is a friend of Ken Lay, and the outright lie that Burns invested money in Enron. Humor, you say? I salute your tolerance.

If Burns would like to have a reasoned discussion of his errors, I would be too busy living a useful existence to accommodate him. Otherwise, simply have him restrain his unwashed opinion to the extent that real humor allows. Not that he grasps that concept either, but I give him the benefit of the doubt.

An otherwise happy subscriber. (See, I'm tolerant too. I endure the sophomoric banter of Burns' moto-related articles to marvel at his ability to repeat the intelligently written advertising copy of others.)

Your friend,

S.D. Smith, scientist, engineer, educator, amused observer of self-conscious losers

johnnyb 09-27-2002 07:45 PM

Re: John Burns; How Does He Get That Helmet On?
camelhumper, underwater ventriloquist

fizzchem 09-28-2002 03:06 AM

Re:Ah, the I haven't heard it so it must not be true argument.
You haven't listened to many informed people (or read very much) then, which is obvious by your posts.

The Nazis were socialists. Read the party platform. It's still available in history books. You know, books. They're for reading.

fizzchem 09-28-2002 03:15 AM

Re: John Burns; How Does He Get That Helmet On?
It's amazing that the most vehement critics of you are scientists and engineers.

Logic may have something to do with that.


Gun-toting, Pyromaniac, CIA Flea Circus Performer.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 PM.