So just what kind of motorsickle was that left-wing liberal, right-wing extremist, notorious rump wrangler, horrible alcoholic, tight-ass teetotaller, wife abuser, ball-buster, lawyer, lesbian, Jew or goy, girl or boyridin' anyway?
Yah mon, all the forward-thinking, visionary types like Walter Mondale, Teddy Kennedy and Algore who want to protect us from ourselves. The big problem as I see it though, is who's gonna protect US from THEM?
I have always believed that a "Thinking motorcyclist'' represents all that is right with the world. Just as there is no denying reality as you are cruising at 75 mph on 2 wheels on the Long Island Expressway over edge traps in front of 18 wheelers, you cannot blank out on the existence of an argument or point because it makes you uncomfortable. If someone responds to a position by attacking the person, that my friend is "blanking out". And blanking out is not something a motorcyclist or anyone for that matter should get in the habit of doing. You can call that person turning left in front of you all the bad names you want but if you deny his existence, you will be killed. There is nothing wrong with a position or argument being above your comprehension because that's how we learn. But to resort to personal attacks just proves that you're an idiot who is unwilling to learn or understand.
I also am a liitle suprised by the reaction to the article. Is this not the sort of stuff John left/was asked to leave motorcyclist for wanting to write? It was one of the main reasons I subscribed to Motorcyclist. "Bitter Little Man" was usually the first thing I read. I may agree or disagree with his polotics/opinion/rederic (sp?) but quite frankly I don't care. I too am a bitter little man and am liable to fly off the handle on just about any topic be it supid stunters or that our taxpayer money is going to fuel Air Force One as it flys racks up insane air mileage for campaigning (this one has disturbed me for a long time). Anyway thumbs up John.
While I am at it I still subscribe to motorcyclist. I know, I know. But I'm sorry it is probably the best print motorcycle magazine this country produces despite it's obvious fawning over certain manufacturers. Why someone hasn't taken a look at BIKE or RIDE out of the UK and put something like that togther in this country is beyond me. Excellent writing, great articles about Bikes, and heaven forbid how to actually ride them better and more competently. Plus big, glossy, pictures...mmmmm Glossy Pictures. (Performance Bike even has naked chicks, well at least topless, but all the times I've bought its been for the articles...really it has) But I've gotten way of my point. In the new issue of motorcyclist notice the dig in Mitch Boehm's column about subscription online services such as this one. He claims that motocyclist's site will be so much better than one you actually have to pay for. Hey Mitch if that were the case this very service has scooped you on about a million new introductions already this year. The writing is funnier yet more insiteful and get this very little hand wringing over offending precious sponsers. I'm sorry this has gone on far too long but it's early Saturday, I'm bored and I haven't ranted about anything since about ten o'clock last night at work.
It is unfortunate that the political left has duped the American populace into accepting ideas that were repugnant 150 years ago. Yes, even relatively conservative republicans are forced to cater to the geriatric and non-taxpaying on the issues of social security, medicare, and prescription drug benefits, and the teacher's unions on the issue of education.
For the record: I believe that state ownership/participation/regulation of any privately created wealth, property, industry, or activity is undesireable and in most cases unconstitutional. A few taxes/programs are neccesary because it is impractical/impossible for a private institution to perform the function, such as in the case of defense or the interstate highway system. Furthermore, these particular programs directly benefit everyone in the country, without exception; the case cannot be made that one person is being robbed to benefit another. That is, however, essentially what happens in every seemingly benevolent program the United States government runs. Social Security, wefare (individual AND corporate), Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, and any one of a hundred other programs and pork outlays operate exclusively on the principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul. These government-run wefare systems and benefits are immoral, unethical, and ultimately destructive to those they're trying to help. They destroy incentive and resign those segments of the population to forever exist in the poverty they attempt to relieve but merely perpetuate and augment. In essence, they are socialist, and there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to participate (though nobody much cares about this fact anymore, and it is routinely ignored.) At root, I believe that the heart of such ideals are jealousy and covetousness. It is more about bringing down the rich than bringing up the poor (since the poor are never brought up anyway.)
By the way, I do not believe that government should be in any way involved in education either. We are getting largely ripped off in terms of cost/benefit with public schools. The teacher's unions are the single most powerful money-grubbing political entity in the state of MN. In addition, when government controls the purse strings, they end up controlling what is taught.
Your county hospital, law enforcement, ambulance, etc...have socialist aspects, but at least they are principally under state or local control, therefore those arrangements are not in violation of the constitution. I do object when they recieve federal money to do this or that. My local PD used a federal grant to enforce seat belt usage (incidentally, by stopping people for speeding, go figure.) That means people in other states were paying to enforce a law they do not neccessarily have themselves. B.S.
Flame away, but at least my views are consistent.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."
"A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul."
--George Bernard Shaw
"Compassion is the use of public funds to buy votes."
Liberals occassionaly do make good arguments resting on the constitution---the bills you mentioned being among them. My problem with the liberal treatment of the Constitution is that they are very good at finding previously non-existent "rights" and justifications for their programs, while at the same time ignoring the plain meaning of the constitution and the very real rights and limits that it specifies. Liberals deify the heretofore undiscovered right to "privacy", yet the second amendment is virtually a dead letter. As well is the fourth, fifth, and especially the tenth. Furthermore, The general welfare and commerce clauses have become justification for virtually every government regulation imagineable.
As stated in another post, I think that every kind of government outlay that does not benefit every single person (or at least every taxpayer) in some real way is unconstitutional and unethical. Pork to any particular district, demographic, person, business, industry, or segment of the population is legalized theft.
I am more than somewhat dissapointed in George W. Bush. He sacrificed his conservative principles to gain political power. He signed the clearly and admittedly unconstitutional campaign-finance reform bill. His tax cuts didn't go nearly far enough to make a difference economically, and his emphasis was far too great on the economic benefits that would be gained, as if that were the reason our taxes should be cut. We are taxed at confiscatory rates, and the taxpayers are being ripped off on behalf of the non-taxpayers. The wealthier 50% of the American populace pays over 96% of the income tax burden.
I don't have the information that Bush and his cabinet have on Sadam Hussein, and I never will------but the idea of going after Sadam smacks of scapegoating. I believe we are principally at war with militant Islam, not Iraq. Iraq hasn't attacked us. If it can be proven that they had something to do with 9/11, that would be different, but our response should be proportional to their role. A huge military operation to overthrow and kill Sadam because some Al-Queda dudes were sleeping in a tent on Iraqi land near the Jordan border is a little extreme. If Sadam, on the other hand, is proven to have directly financed or knowingly assisted the terrorists, then all bets are off. That would be attack by proxy, and Sadam would be liable.
The risk to our mainland from Sadam's missiles is pretty much zero, but against China, Korea, and former Russian republics? All too real. We should already have missle defense.
Why waste your time and energy on poor Abe. Someone who can't even see the benefit of public education and blathers on about the uncontitutionality of every thing yet is not able to question the anti-terrorism bull***** is hopeless.
Perhaps you should think (or read) before you speak
Anyone who can't see the destructiveness of public ownership of education and dismisses the constitution as an irrelevant relic not worthy of attention should shut their mouths before speaking untruths. I agreed that the anti-terrorism bills were instrusive, suspect, and (not that you care) perhaps unconstitutional. Why don't we just burn the constitution and be done with it? It seems that you couldn't care less what it says.
Ok, JB, you got the rant right this time (unlike Part One which pissed me off for reasons I can't remember, and I don't really care anymore anyway cause I'm "busy"). If you're ever in the Hotlanta area, look me up and I'll buy you your favorite beverage and treat you to one of my favorite ceegars!