Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > MO vs. World

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-22-2005, 08:33 PM   #101
abogado
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 25
Default Re: Sportbikes Vs. Lawmakers

My two cents...I think government should have the ability to pass these laws. (As they should with seatbelts, etc.) Once again, there is NO fundimental right to drive a motorcycle on public roads, to ride without a seatbelt, etc. The funny thing is, this is precisely the legal philosophy of the right wing of the supreme court. The really funny thing is that i agree.



Now, since sportbikes are so important to me, I would not vote to have this measure implemented. A politician who voted for this kind of legislation would probably not get a vote from me.
abogado is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 08-22-2005, 09:06 PM   #102
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: Sportbikes Vs. Lawmakers

When you learn on what grounds the founders of this country threw off the chains of King George, come back and talk.



If I'm not mistaken, their press at the time was also relatively free.



The simple ability to criticise an out-of-control empiristic government does not a free country make.



But I guess as long as our government allows us to ride our motorcycles and go fishing, most of the sheep will sleep soundly at night.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2005, 09:08 PM   #103
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: pseudo-intellectualism is all the rage these days!

Yes, dismiss the message with a dollop of condescencion. Good job. Keep manning those RNC phone centers.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2005, 09:10 PM   #104
Abe_Froman
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 878
Default Re: Sportbikes Vs. Lawmakers

We would like to see those Carter years never return. However the current administration is apparently making it's best effort to bring it about.



Neo-conservative apologetics will not defy the laws of economics forever.
Abe_Froman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2005, 10:22 PM   #105
m_t_yeo
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 323
Default Re: Sportbikes Vs. Lawmakers

"Name one person suffering from the Patriot Act."



Too easy! A Canadian on holiday, Mr. Arar, was seized by the US Authorities with their reasoning being the ability to seize someone for questioning - without having to demonstrate cause - for a two week period. Straight from the Patriot Act, that one. His few days turned into a few months, during which he was flown to Syria on an unmarked jet, systematically tortured, and then flown back when the Syrians determined he had nothing to do with terrorism. He is currently suing the US government for their unstated policy of 'rendition' where the cowards who won't torture someone themselves send the victim off to a country that will gladly torture the person FOR them.



"Like at the Dmocratic National Convention?"



The national conventions are love-ins for the duly converted. I'm talking about public events that AREN'T tied to specific party. Where ever Bush speaks, he has the streets cleared, sets up a 'protest zone' that is nowhere near where the speaking will be happening, and leans on foreign leaders to make sure protesters are kept at their distance. In other words, dissent is OK as long as it doesn't cause a problem. I'm sure the Boston Tea Party would have been a blast if the citizens dressed as Indians were told they could only dump a couple of boxes of old tea and they had to dump them in an approved dumping pond built for the purpose twenty miles inland away from where the tea was brought into port. That protest would have gotten a LOT of attention, then.



"Name ONE."



Joseph Wilson and his wife. She was outed as a CIA operative by Karl Rove in retaliation for questioning the 'Nigerian' connection between Saddam and the nuclear materials he supposedly was in the market for. Wilson knew the document was a forgery and told the world that Bush was using forged documents to bolser his case for war. A few months later ... Plame gets outed and loses all chance of being a functioning operative for the CIA. Now THAT is treason, not some grieving soccer mom looking for answers.



To this list I would add Scott Ritter and Hans Blix, who both had the audacity to say that there were no WMDs. Ritter was fired for speaking that truth and Blix gets lambasted at every turn. Jay Garner was outspoken about how many troops would be needed to pacify Iraq, estimated high on how many years the US would be involved and advised that selling off the nationally-owned assets would only hamper the rebuilding process. As a result, he was in the job only a couple of months before getting sacked and replaced with Bremer, who sold off Iraqi assets to the highest bidder. Al-Sadr explicitly stated that his reason for promoting violence was in response to Bremer selling off anything of value the Iraqi's owned for pennies on the dollar. I would even include Powell in this group, because I don't believe for a second that his 'retirement' was voluntary.



"Like the Democratic election board that designed the Florida ballot that confused Democrats?"



Like Blackwell, who was the Bush-Cheney chairman in Ohio, being in charge of counting the votes in a key contested state, and delaying that recount until there was no possible way that the results could be overturned. He even held his recounts behind closed doors without other party's representatives present. Or Katherine Harris, now running for the Senate as a Republican, who ignored the recount going on in contested counties in Florida and certified the election results based on the Supreme Court decision to stop counting because Gore looked to be winning the recount. Like a nationwide adoption of voting machines made by Diebold, made without the option of a manual printout to verify voting results, when the CEO of Diebold himself publicly promised that he would deliver the election to Bush. That is just ridiculous partisan interference with an election.



"What petitioning to control the judiciary are you talking about?"



The Republicans are trying to stack the Supreme court for their ends right at this moment and are tossing up some pretty ridiculous names for consideration. Go to the GOP website and they openly admit a campaign to stack state courts to further their ends, too. Clinton did it, Bush will do it, and some nameless future Democrat will do it, but it still stinks that judges intended to be impartial are appointed specifically for their political stance.



"Oh, so it's a vague sensation."



To freedom loving folks, it is more than a vague sensation. I'll admit that I find it odd that folks who come out on the side of freedom pretty rabidly (you, longride) support someone who has done nothing but erode rights since he took office. I am mystified why this is.



1) Bush's Clean Air Act actually allows companies to pollute more.



2) The PNAC, the neo-con organization that everyone in the Bush Administration is or was a member of, has been touting an invasion of Iraq since Bush Sr. Their policy papers say Iraq and Iran need to be invaded to guarantee a supply of oil for the upcoming showdown with China for world dominance. We are honestly supposed to believe that invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with oil after reading those policy papers? LOL. Suuuuuuurrrrre we are in Iraq to promote democracy and bring freedom to the Iraqis.



3) The No Child Left Behind Act actually reduces funding to key child-poverty organizations.



4) Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. The Downing memo proves that both the US and Britain knew that BEFORE they invaded.



5) The US was bombing Iraq several months before the request for a war mandate was taken before Congress.



Lie upon mistruth upon misdirection. How can you honestly trust this guy to safeguard your rights when his administration doesn't even respect you enough to tell you the truth?
m_t_yeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 12:25 AM   #106
olmetec
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1
Default Re: Sportbikes Vs. Lawmakers

changes are already law and the first phase will begin in 2006, 2nd 2010 and final 2011 or 2012. ALL bikes will be liquid cooled, catalyc converters and QUIET pipes. a few other changes I presently don't recall. new ownership requirements too; custom, show, miles ridden, etc...
__________________
retired \'n bought a wing, so riding is my thing.
olmetec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 09:13 AM   #107
epinkert
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 22
Default Re: Sportbikes Vs. Lawmakers

<blockquote>Violation of possession ban in DC was mandatory year in jail, Rowan served 365 days less than that. And that was WITH shooting the evil poolhopper. </blockquote>



The city did attempt to prosecute, and IIRC, the trial was highly publicized. It ended with a deadlocked jury and the judge declared a mistrial. I don't think that they treated him particularly special. His claim was that his son was a former federal law enforcement officer, and the weapon was exempt from DC law. Apparently, the DA's office disagreed. He was, FWIW, a total hypocrite however. He's dead now.
</p>
epinkert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 09:41 AM   #108
epinkert
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 22
Default Re: Sportbikes Vs. Lawmakers

<blockquote>My two cents...I think government should have the ability to pass these laws. (As they should with seatbelts, etc.) Once again, there is NO fundimental right to drive a motorcycle on public roads, to ride without a seatbelt, etc.</blockquote>



I don't know if I'm taking the hook on a big troll or not...but I'll bite on this one. I've seen this argument so many times before, and am not sure that I've ever actually understood it. Why do I not have a fundamental right to use government property that my taxes have paid for? By paying taxes for roads, as well as tolls...not to mention sales tax on my car/bike, tax on the gas, and on top of that, an exise tax on usage...why am I not entitled to use public roads? Sure, there are rules of the road, and they must be followed. If broken, I lose my usage rights. Now, how is this different from any other fundamental freedoms? If I break the rules, I get thrown in jail, and nearly all of my freedoms (fundamental rights) are gone. I even lose my voting rights in many states. So by your logic, nothing is a right, everything is a privilege. Does that mean that if the government wants to make a law, however unjust or asenine, I should just bend over and take it like a man. Are you just a big fan of federalism or something?</p>



One of the biggest problems with these safety laws, IMO, is that they make for dumber people. Not only does this increase the longevity of real morons, but it increases their potential for breeding...increasing the moron gene pool a bit more. It's anti-Darwinism in action...why protect jerks (from themselves) who make life a little worse for us all? Further, I believe that having laws for every little thing makes people not stop and think about the consequences of their actions. The mentality becomes something like "there's no law against it, so it *must* be OK".</p>



FWIW, there is no fundamental right to breathe on the books either...I guess that the life, liberty, and prosperity thing covers that, but why would riding a motorcycle capable of 200 MPH at legal speeds not also be covered?</p>
epinkert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 11:00 AM   #109
epinkert
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 22
Default Re: Sportbikes Vs. Lawmakers

Politicizing fiscal policy isn't a new thing. It goes back as far as I can remember, and then even as far back into US history as I can recall from my history.
epinkert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 11:22 AM   #110
epinkert
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 22
Default Re: Sportbikes Vs. Lawmakers

<blockquote>Oh for crying out loud, no government is going to get involved with this. Look at the weeping, hysteria, screaming and gnashing of teeth over mandatory helmet laws -- and that's the biggest no-brainer there is.</blockquote>





Wait...the helmet thing is a no-brainer? So which side are you on then? Does it mean that everyone on the other side is brainless? It seems that there are folks on both sides here, so you may want to choose your answer carefully.</p>
epinkert is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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