Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO Reader Feedback

Thread Tools
Old 09-26-2002, 05:47 AM   #71
Registered Member
nimrod's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3
Default Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People

Greetings from a fellow bike owning, gun owning, Libertarain. Good post!
nimrod is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Old 09-26-2002, 05:48 AM   #72
Founding Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43
Default Re: What's your alternative to Capitalism?

Well, that equation (capitalism = Freedom = America) may not be perfect, but it is the best we've got so far. I assume that you are not a fan of communism or you (and everyone else) would be riding a Ural. Communism certainly didn't equal freedom, and has failed miserably as an economic system. Perhaps you prefer a religious economic system to godless communism? The taliban/Saudi/Iran regimes certainly don't equal freedom, and have also failed miserably as economic systems. Maybe you prefer socialism to capitalism, where the productive support the non-productive. So do the French - they are becoming more irrelevant every year economically, militarily and, for that matter, intellectually.

Let me suggest that the numerous models of motorcycles (and yes, SUVs) is a direct result of the profit motive and competition. I'll take capitalism over the existing choices anyday.

And no, capitalism isn't perfect. Human nature isn't perfect. All the guilty players in the recent stock/accounting scandals should be tried, convicted, and sentenced to hard labor. Sorry about the long post, but mindless slogans irritate me.

Yamahanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2002, 05:50 AM   #73
Founding Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 32
Default Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions

---I don't think the premise that a critic should explain his solutions is so very far off, but I have ALL KINDS of solutions to problems that seem to confound the politicians. Mostly, their confusion lies in the enormous conflicts of interest that got them elected in the first place. In our "Democracy", the representatives represent the economic interests of the corporate or special interest contributors rather than in-common quality of life issues of people.

---Just one example. Since the tragic death of 3000 people on 9/11, 6000 people have died on the highways resulting from accidents with semi-tractor trailer and large trucks. The Teamsters are killing more people than the terrorists. Many more from SUVs and pick-ups. Where is the outrage? Why aren't these vehicles on seperate, industrial roads, or at least asked to stay to the right? Because the corps and the unions got the best politicians they could buy.

---That's my solution that comes with my criticism. I'd go on about economic interest, but one thing at a time.

Jay_Mack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2002, 05:52 AM   #74
Founding Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 144
Default Huh?

Ferris wrote:

"Secondly, Tom Daschle is a socialist. His goal is not to help the economy, it is to buy as many votes from as many segments of the population he can by shoveling out Other People's Money."

I'll admit it's been quite a few years since I was in school, but that doesn't look like any definition I've ever seen given for socialism. I'm curious as to where you gathered this info (not Tom's intentions so much as your understanding of socialism).

Furthermore: I don't think I'm a socialist, but I'm willing to play one on TV...
v4bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2002, 05:53 AM   #75
Founding Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 86
Default Would Egan, Cameron, Salvadori or others impose THEIR politics on their readers?

I understand that the nature of this website, and the forum of the Internet in general, is much more "open" than traditional print motorcycle publications. I also know that, based on his past history and posts, Johhny B. has a bit of a "rogue" side to him (which I suspect he relishes)...thus his saga of butting heads with the likes of Boehm and his departing from the oppression associated with "mainstream/corporate" motojournalism. This hasn't, however, prevented Johhny B. from doing some writing for Cycle World, which is perfectly understandable. The man has bills to pay and obviously this website alone can not support his family. It is important to note, however, that CW has not (nor will they, I suspect) give him a column like he had at Motorcyclist. CW has Edwards, Egan and Cameron for that. Burns just writes about the bikes.

I can't help but feel that there is a bit of arrogance in John's non-motorcycle, political writings...the great Burns/Zeus taps out a message from the mountain when the minions need enlightenment. Yes, you are The Editor, and you may embrace this website for the freedom it provides you to express your non-motorcycle ideas that have met resistenance in the past.

However, you have built your reputation and career on your ability to ride, evaluate and write about motorcycles. The last time you "got bitter" and attempted to extend your journalistic license it didn't go well, did it? I, for one, do not care to know about your political beliefs, nor do I need you to enlighten me on anything not related to motorcycles. Yes, you are a public figure John (at least within the motorcycling community), and there are many things on which we want to hear your opinion. However, does anyone else resent that John occasionally takes this site hostage to spout his political beliefs while the "street" version of the naked bike shootout is apparently dead?

In the past, you have written that what you most enjoy about the mainstream mags is the writings of Egan and the like. Yes, John, you too are in that category. But regardless of the subject, those men ALWAYS connect their opnions and observations back to bikes and I can't think of a time when any of them have ever gotten away with a full fledged rant like you sometimes impose on us. Are they oppressed as you once were? Or do they recognize where the boundaries lay and are not self-righteous enough to think that their readers want their opinions about anything other than motorcycling?

Ken_Packard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2002, 05:54 AM   #76
Founding Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6
Default Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People

Your argument for complaining about things you don't have the solution for is good. Your false assumption that you're not partisan is wrong. I have heard so many liberal blowhards carry on while the amen choir is listening that it no longer amazes me that such bull goes unchallenged. Yet these same blowhards often go to mumbling and name-calling when called out to debate issues. I count on you to inform me as to the latest and greatest in motorcycle development. You do an excellent job with this. Please don't start using my subscription to begin a career in political commentary. I count on other more informed and qualified sources for political information.
Clem_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2002, 05:59 AM   #77
Founding Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 729
Default Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People

Pol Pot presided over the killing of over a million Cambodians. Does that count as mass destruction?

Saddam Hussein is of little threat to you in your home unless your supply of heating oil is cutoff. If you are really worried about nuclear, chemical or biological weapons (and I think that you probably should be, btw) I suggest that you start chewing on the ear of your local congressional representative and convince them to do more to help infuse hard cash into former Soviet Union so that they won't have as much incentive to sell off their stockpile to every bad hombre in the world in order to feed themselves. And Hussein isn't even at the head of that line either. Try Al Queda, the North Koreans, Hamas, India, .....

sportbike_pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2002, 06:00 AM   #78
Founding Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 143
Default Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People

Read the British dossier on Hussein. He definitely had more weapons in 90-91 than he does now (though he clearly still possesses them). I absolutely agree he is a madman.

But he is a madman that is, above all else, interested in staying in power. Why do you think he refrained from using chemical weapons against Israel in the Gulf War? Or against our troops? Because he knows what the response would have been.

Though we love to point out his use of chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds now, there were several attempts by the US government to lessen criticism of Hussein at the time because he was opposing the evil Iran (who we were also clandestinely supplying arms to).

As to your WMD argument, Sadam is hardly alone. We turned a blind eye to the Pakistani nuclear program in the '80s, we have threatened NK, Nigeria also had a WMD program, South Africa actually had nuclear weapons and dismantled them, and any number of states have experimented with various forms of WMD. The oil argument is pretty sound.

So what does Sadam have to gain from using a WMD? Not much. The official US policy is that we reserve the right to respond to any unconvential weapon with nuclear weapons. Israel threatened to "turn the desert to glass" should Hussein ever use such weapons against them. Hussein wants to stay in power, not be killed.

Besides that, how would he get them here? The most advanced missile under development in Iraq has a range of ~1200 km.

The only way he would get them here is if he gave them to a terrorist group. But he would hardly be alone in doing that. Numerous gov'ts we do business with give illicit funds to terrorist -- most Al Queda funding came straight from Saudi Arabia.

In short, I don't buy the argument that Hussein is so crazy he's just going to start using chemical weapons against anything that moves. He cares too much about himself.

Do I wish he were not in charge in Iraq? Absolutely. Do I think we are overstating the case? Absolutely.
Eric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2002, 06:03 AM   #79
Founding Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2
Default Did I pay $$ to hear political activism on this site???

Um, can someone tell me what this has to do with motorcycles? I thought I subscribed to motorcycle.com, not democrats.com.

The reason it's not okay for the majority leader of the Senate to criticize without offering a real solution is because it's their JOB to do so, and as of yet, they have not put forth any real proposal... only criticized the one put forth by the House. That's what he's talking about.

Now, your Army captain is an idiot because it's not a civilian's job to come up with solutions, per se. I doubt civilians are even taken seriously when they do.

Please keep the articles on topic. It was very madenning to follow the link from an email only to see political activism shoved down my throat. I pay good money for this subscription.

Thank you.

Cary A. Stevens®
carystevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2002, 06:04 AM   #80
Founding Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 729
Default Re: John Burns; Great Arguments for Stupid People

Bye, bye. Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass....
sportbike_pilot is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off