| Author | Message | ||
     Xl1200r |
It has been a uphill battle from the very beginning , and if you go back and read some of Founder's quotes and writings (especially Washington and Franklin) you will see that they foresaw these difficulties and tried to warn against the temptations that would lead to them, nobody listened to them. This was my point - they warned, we ignored. There is a general belief that people of that age were somehow more noble and honorable than those of today, yet true historical accounts show that not to be true. name one Presidnet in the last 50 years that would WILLINGLY, and without asking, sit on the front lines with our soilders to defend this nation for no other reason than his belief in what we stand for, and because it would gain him points in some political score card? Dare I got back 100 years? 150??? | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
(5) why discuss politics on a motorcycle forum? Certain people keep bringing this up, as if they believe by bringing it up it will shame those of us who participate in non-motorcycle discussions into not participating. If it bothers you that much then I suggest you either not participate or you ask Blake to amend the rules as to what is allowed to be discussed here on the Quick Board. Personally, you and others complaining about it only encourages me. Furthermore, I've seen tempers flare when debating motorcycles, so; it's not just political discussions that cause arguments. | ||
| Skntpig |
UMMMMM does anyone know what the backfire board is for? | ||
| Slaughter |
It was the OP's request to keep current politics out of the discussion that weirded it all. If you didn't want current politics to enter into the discussion why ask what our Founding Fathers would think??? I'm still confused - but really don't give much of a poo-poo since this is a Moto-board and anybody discussing politics DESERVES to be screwed with! I don't discuss moto-topics on the news boards or on the photo discussion boards. | ||
| Xl1200r |
31 out of the 86 active threads have nothing to do with motorcycles. That's nearly a third. The vast majority of those are not political in nature. If you don't want to read it, then don't. I belong to a number of forums and they ALL stray off their intended purpose, whether it be for bikes, cars, guns or airplanes. If you don't want to read it, then don't open it. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
UMMMMM does anyone know what the backfire board is for? UMMMMMM, you can't post there !!!!!! Quick Board: For general Buell, non-Buell and other moto-related talk OR whatever else is on your mind. I'm still confused - but really don't give much of a poo-poo since this is a Moto-board and anybody discussing politics DESERVES to be screwed with! You participate in these discussions quite often. So, I'm confused. Are you saying you want to be screwed with??? If you don't want to read it, then don't open it. Oh nooooo...we can't have that !! That would require someone to act like an adult and take personal responsibility. Some of us enjoy discussing topics other than Buell motorcycles with people from different walks of life and other locales, etc. I don't understand why some feel the need to interject themselves into these topics with the sole purpose of disrupting the conversation. Seems mighty childish, to me. Think of a thread as a room with a door on it. Now, think of a sign on the door. If you know political talks annoy you and that is what is posted on the sign on the door then dont open the freakin door. Seems simple enough to me. If it appears I'm getting annoyed it's because I am. I've about had my fill of people that want to control every aspect of my life from my speech down to how many sheets of toilet paper I use. My tolerance for morons is waning, fast. | ||
| Slaughter |
I just enjoy screwing and counter-screwing and the fact that original posts make no sense whatsoever. Threads always take on a life of their own. Discuss | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
My two favorite ultra-liberals are Hexangler and Bill0351. Those two are about 180 degrees out of phase with my thinking, consistently.  | ||
| Slaughter |
It's all fun... until somebody shoots their eye out!!  | ||
| Greenlantern |
GREAT TASTE? (Message edited by greenlantern on July 07, 2009) | ||
| Scottykrein |
LESS FILLING! | ||
| Greenlantern |
name one Presidnet in the last 50 years that would WILLINGLY, and without asking, sit on the front lines with our soilders to defend this nation for no other reason than his belief in what we stand for, and because it would gain him points in some political score card? Dare I got back 100 years? 150??? The last Presidnet... er..um President at the front lines?  (Sorry,could not resist) I am not sure, but the last unsupervised President under active fire would have been Lincoln. He visited Fort Stevens on the Washington outer defenses during July of 1864. The base commander made a polite but non sincere query to Mr. Lincoln if he would like a tour of the base defenses not thinking for a moment that Lincoln would accept as the fort was presently under heavy small arms fire. Well Lincoln who was famously anxious every moment of the war and even more so for any excuse of diversion from the viper pit where he had played snake charmer for the past 4 years accepted. Lincoln scooted his lanky butt right up a ladder and with stovepipe hat and all, surveyed the view from over the forts wall, meanwhile bullets twittering about his head. The officer pleaded with Lincoln albeit as a subordinate would to the commander in chief to repair to safety but the President was either oblivious or ignored his pleas. However down below, behind the safety of the fort's walls, future Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr, a captain in the Army of the Potomac, saw Lincoln peering over the parapet and only recognizing him as a civilian shouted "Get down, you damned fool, before you get shot!" Lincoln heard this , smiled and came down the ladder. | ||
| Cyclonedon |
name one Presidnet in the last 50 years that would WILLINGLY, and without asking, sit on the front lines with our soilders to defend this nation for no other reason than his belief in what we stand for, and because it would gain him points in some political score card? does George W. Bush apply? he did fly jets in the National Guard, didn't he? | ||
| Xl1200r |
I think that would count to some degree - but, volunteering to lead a foot-and-horse army into battle completely on your own accord in order to fight, at times for your life, for what you believe in is something totaly different. | ||
| Hootowl |
Bush Sr. was a WWII Navy pilot. I'd call that sitting on the front lines. McCain, though he wasn't elected president, was certainly a combat vet. So was Kerry. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I think the better question is who has an open disdain for the military. We've had Presidents that not only wouldn't serve on the front lines but had an open disdain and hatred for those "knuckle dragger" military people. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Maybe I'm jaded, but I don't even look at WWII in the same light as the American War of Independence. Maybe it's not a fair thing to ask for since the oppurtunity would need to present itself, and revolutions every 4 or 8 years just seems like a little overkill... But I can't think of a single politicain in power at the national level that would do what some of the fathers of our nation did. To be frank, Benedict Arnold had more class and honor than nearly anyone currently in Washington. | ||
| Greenlantern |
Bush Sr. was a WWII Navy pilot. I'd call that sitting on the front lines. I was under the impression that we were referring to a sitting president at the lines not prior service as there is sizable list of presidents who served prior. | ||
| Hootowl |
Fair enough. However, if a sitting president actually went to the front lines of a current conflict, he or she would be roundly ridiculed and condemned for pulling such a stunt. Can you imagine the outcry? Putting all those secret service agents in danger, the cost of the trip, the folly of intentionally risking the life of the "leader of the free world", using the office of the president to pull a political stunt. Bush flew to an aircraft carrier a few miles off the coast of the US and we still haven't heard the end of it. "Mission Accomplished" now means "The President is an idiot" in the eyes of half the country. So who would profit by a president parking his/her arse behind a mounted 50 in the mountains of Afganistan? No one but the political foes of the president. | ||
| Greenlantern |
Fair enough. However, if a sitting president actually went to the front lines of a current conflict, he or she would be roundly ridiculed and condemned for pulling such a stunt. I agree. No acting President should be in active zone for any reason. It serves no purpose and our military chain of command is set up to reinforce this point. A President visiting a secure zone for troop morale, I have no problem with, but it should be unannounced and kept in the field and not be a p.r. event for the benefit of Joe and Sally six pack sitting in their living rooms at home. We can hear about it in the news roundup later. Not trying to be cynical but it seems to me anyway that armchairs are not only for racing and baseball anymore. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
But I can't think of a single politicain in power at the national level that would do what some of the fathers of our nation did. Would you really want McCain out on the front lines? Clinton? Carter? Generally, Presidents are in their 50-60's. That's way beyond active duty age. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Didn't Bush II land at the Baghdad airport while under the risk of mortar attacks? I know, not front line but still a slight risk. | ||
| Strokizator |
He flew to Iraq and had Thanksgiving dinner with the troops in 2003. He was supposed to be celebrating the holiday in Crawford but snuck out and nobody was the wiser. He landed in Andrews AFB coming and going but I don't remember if he changed planes or not. That probably took more planning than D-Day. If I were a soldier spending T-giving away from my family and the POTUS showed up for chow, I'd be impressed. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
| ||
| Xl1200r |
Generally, Presidents are in their 50-60's. That's way beyond active duty age. Washington was 51 when the revolution ended. I think that's more than along the same lines. I guess the comparison is sort of unfair as the oppurtunity needs to present itself, and it hasn't since way back then. Maybe the question is - would any president be willing to give thier life in order to save the country? Or how about, were the stakes the same as they were 230 years ago, would any president be willing to fight for the United States rather than take an easier free ride with the "British" (whoever that may be in this scenario)? I think the current crop, both sides included for the most part, would be more interested in getting as much power as they could rather than for standing up for themselves, their nation and their people. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
No doubt. That said, there are any number of patriots who would kill or be killed in defense of this nation. Eisenhower comes to mind. Unfortunately, we tend to elect a different kind of President during or just after a time of war than we do in a time of peace. Rarely are we electing a President in preparation of war. Washington was 51 but didn't serve as President until AFTER the war was over. Teddy fought in the SA War but didn't serve as President until afterward. I think the standard of a fighting President is a little unrealistic. | ||
| Slaughter |
Didn't quite post this at an earlier time but... The following Presidents were NOT born in the United States: George Washington John Adams Thomas Jefferson James Madison James Monroe John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson William Henry Harrison | ||
| Nik |
The following Presidents were NOT born in the United States: George Washington John Adams Thomas Jefferson James Madison James Monroe John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson William Henry Harrison No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Didn't quite post this at an earlier time but... The following Presidents were NOT born in the United States: George Washington John Adams Thomas Jefferson James Madison James Monroe John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson William Henry Harrison The United States didn't exsist when these men were born. The following on your list were born in the the colonies of: Washington: Virginia Adams: Massechusets Jefferson: Virginia Madison: Virginia Monroe: Virgina J.Q. Adams: Massechusets Jackson: Waxhaus (N/S Carolina Border) Harrison: Virginia So in fact, EVERY president has been born on American soil, weather it had been officially the United States or the British American Colonies. | ||
| Slaughter |
Yabbut that's kind of the argument about Obama being "inelegible" to be president isn't it? Regardless, either argument is a red herring. |
