Politics, religion and cycling



less'go

New Member
Sep 11, 2003
749
4
0
54
Okay, minor rant coming...

I really wish posters would keep their political opinions to themselves because sometimes I read someone's posts and I think "Hey this person seems like he/she has interesting stuff to add to the CYCLING forum, I like their writing style/humor/perspective on CYCLING... And then the person starts talking politics and it totally changes the way I read his/her posts.

Of course you'd say, and you'd be correct to say it, that if the political opinions the poster expressed were akin to my own, it probably wouldn't irk me a bit. True.

But when people get into politics and/or religion in an otherwise a-political/non-spiritual thread, it's like begging for the cyclists on the forum to take sides and divide into groups of christian cyclists, republican cyclist, democrat cyclists, green party cyclists, socialist cyclists, American cyclists, European cyclists, Aussi cyclists... I think you get my drift.

Thanks for reading this probably completely irrelevant and inane post, atleast I've put my two cents in and now will be able to resist getting into a political debate on the cycling forum.

Happy peddlin',
Sara
 

james Haury

New Member
Feb 1, 2004
22
0
0
Isn't posting on political and religous topics what the soapbox is about? If you can't take reading someone elses opinion ,you do not have to view this forum.All people are different and you will not like some of what I say and you may agree with some.I have a right to say it though. If you listen to the opinions of others you may learn something.
 

tacomee

New Member
Nov 17, 2003
115
0
0
I'm sorry Sara, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Bikes are made me friends with people I'd never ever would have talked to (I fact one gun toting, Jesus loving, Rightwinger I'm kinda friends with is likely reading this-- who would have thought a bent rear derailuer would have ever got you to hang out with a wine drinking, Europe loving, Leftwing freak like me?)
 

less'go

New Member
Sep 11, 2003
749
4
0
54
Whooaah, fellas, first off, the post that irked me was not in the Bloody Soapbox file, it was in a totally unrelated thread, in cycle training, "Worst cycling tips ever" or something along those lines. That thread could rapidly have gone from a cycling thread to a republican vs. democrat thread... And I just thought It would be a shame to see yet another decent cycling thread degenerate into a political flame-war. Am I really going to convince someone who loves GW that he shouldn't, and be able to do that in a cycling forum? DOubt it.

But I was just venting in the Soap Box. Needed to get it out. You all can say anything your hearts desire, of course...:)
 

james Haury

New Member
Feb 1, 2004
22
0
0
Less'go. What you mentioned in your last post has happened in Bike forums.What bike would george Bush ride was the thread .
 

less'go

New Member
Sep 11, 2003
749
4
0
54
Hmmm, now that sounds like an interesting thread, and with a header like that you know what the thread's about... I'll have to go look for it.

I love to talk politics and espouse my own special mix of "wine drinking, Europe loving, Leftwing freak" (to quote Tacomee), but not if it's going to ruin a good thread that is about cycling.

In a non-cycling or soap box kind of thread, that's another story.

So while we're in the soap box, I sure wish people would put something in the "location" box of their profiles! Fill out those forms, kids, even if you just put something goofy in there. There's a whole thread in the soap box about that subject!

Now go ride and be good!
 

el Ingles

New Member
Oct 3, 2003
730
0
0
66
Originally posted by less'go
Hmmm, now that sounds like an interesting thread, and with a header like that you know what the thread's about... I'll have to go look for it.

I love to talk politics and espouse my own special mix of "wine drinking, Europe loving, Leftwing freak" (to quote Tacomee), but not if it's going to ruin a good thread that is about cycling.

In a non-cycling or soap box kind of thread, that's another story.

So while we're in the soap box, I sure wish people would put something in the "location" box of their profiles! Fill out those forms, kids, even if you just put something goofy in there. There's a whole thread in the soap box about that subject!

Now go ride and be good!

spoil sport , it we can´t talk about politics or religion that only leaves sex ; and I don´t think the Americans listening would aprove ( you know , the watergate lot )
 

less'go

New Member
Sep 11, 2003
749
4
0
54
You mean talking about things that could traumatize and scar our young children for life, like catching a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breasts? I say we only talk about what I want to talk about, now is that clear? Otherwise, I may have to slap a law suit on the lot of you.

SAra
 

el Ingles

New Member
Oct 3, 2003
730
0
0
66
Originally posted by less'go
You mean talking about things that could traumatize and scar our young children for life, like catching a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breasts? I say we only talk about what I want to talk about, now is that clear? Otherwise, I may have to slap a law suit on the lot of you.

SAra


yes that´s wierd , I mean who would admit to vomiting from seeing a nipple ? :confused:
 

Beastt

New Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,143
0
0
Originally posted by el Inglés
yes that´s wierd , I mean who would admit to vomiting from seeing a nipple ? :confused:

How very true. In the U.S. you can show all the war footage you like. Torn, shredded, lifeless bodies still bleeding and piled on top of one another - great entertainment for the kiddies!

But show a breast, (and a fine, healthy looking example of one, I might add), and the whole country goes bonkers. Somewhere along the line something became seriously skewed and very few seem to notice.
 

less'go

New Member
Sep 11, 2003
749
4
0
54
Yup, and I love how in the US you can show ALMOST everything, so long as you don't show the really nasty parts, and that's supposed to protect us from people turning into perverts? Here in France (and I'm not saying it's a perfect country either), you can see whole breasts, butts, etc. on TV and on billboards, and the rate of sexual violence is way below that in the U.S.

There's something about repressing sexuality, making something inherently dirty of the human body, that creates a sexually whacked atmosphere in the States.

When I was there last summer, some 3 year old girl got kicked out of a water theme park on the East Coast because she was not wearing a top with her swimsuit!!! A 3 year old girl! Cops came and everything! WTF? Apparently the parents were told there could be pedophiles watching who'd get excited by it... Again, WTF???

And I'd so much rather my kids see a naked lady dance or a couple making love on the TV than seeing Schwarzenneger extenguish a cigar on a man's neck or even 2 minutes of a film like Reservoir Dogs. Sex, love, the human body I can explain to them. Violence I cannot.
S
 

DiabloScott

New Member
May 15, 2003
2,284
4
38
Hey - Less'go... nice post. We need you here in the states to help us overthrow the Fundamentalist Fascisti.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Originally posted by Beastt
How very true. In the U.S. you can show all the war footage you like. Torn, shredded, lifeless bodies still bleeding and piled on top of one another - great entertainment for the kiddies!

But show a breast, (and a fine, healthy looking example of one, I might add), and the whole country goes bonkers. Somewhere along the line something became seriously skewed and very few seem to notice.

It is one of those contradictions I find fascinating about the USA, where anything to do with sex appears to be frowned about in certain quarters.
My country (Ireland) had the same puritanical view point when it came to anything to do with sex or sexuality, up to very recently.
(I’m not saying that being puritanical is good or bad – I’m simply making an observation).

Britain and mainland Europe do, in comparison, have a more relaxed attitude to sex.
If JJ exposed herself on Italian/French/British TV, there wouldn’t be much of a response,
I think, when compared to the reaction in the USA.

And I agree with Beastt view – there is something wrong when images of destroyed bodies are transmitted without criticism, but when a breast is exposed there is a huge outcry !

An interesting aside : on a recent BBC program, one contributor stated that in the USA, because there was is now a conservative president in office, the political climate has made it more acceptable for those of a more puritanical view to express their opinions openly.
The correspondent referred to the fact that under the Clinton administration that USA was a safer, happier and more tolerant place to live in.
He made the point that perhaps because Clinton was more interested in sowing his wild oats that this satisfied certain needs which George Bush cannot satisfy, except by going in to trouble spots around the world !

Do our transatlantic friends concur with this view ?
 

brightgarden

New Member
Oct 19, 2003
199
0
0
55
i concur, and i'm on this side of the atlantic.

i thought i was kidding years ago when i told my (then) husband that he better not walk around topless if i could get arrested for doing the same thing. then after a while, i wasn't kidding because it drove me nuts that i could not walk around topless, but guys could!

we are so uptight...
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Originally posted by brightgarden
i concur, and i'm on this side of the atlantic.

i thought i was kidding years ago when i told my (then) husband that he better not walk around topless if i could get arrested for doing the same thing. then after a while, i wasn't kidding because it drove me nuts that i could not walk around topless, but guys could!

we are so uptight...

I'm always fascinated to hear a view from the States - about the States.

The subliminal message from the BBC correspondent was - and I hope that this doesn't come across as being sexist - is that if the
president (Clinton) was busy seducing women, his aggressive instincts are sated.
Whereas Bush doesn't chase women - he has to get his kicks
through military force.
So everyone is safer when the president is sowing his wild oats !

NB: these are not my views, they're the views of a BBC correspondent.
 

brightgarden

New Member
Oct 19, 2003
199
0
0
55
and it's ok to be sexist in the bloody soap box, i should think. and i live in virginia anyhow.
 

Beastt

New Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,143
0
0
As a relatively popular American comedian pointed out, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), which is an appointed body rather than an elected one, took it upon themselves to decide that radio and television are the only two parts of American life not protected by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (the part that assures free-speech).

Americans, for the most part are a sheepish lot. We tend to graze along with the flock and whenever the dog barks we all run in the other direction as a tight little group, self-assured that this keeps us safe. When the FCC decided we'd be safer with our constitutional rights removed from radio and television, we happily accepted this and now seem to feel that promoting the idea that censorship equates to safety will somehow benefit society as a whole.

The "good sheep" in the flock are the ones raising all the commotion about the Janet Jackson "incident". I find it almost humorous that the people most willing to give up American rights are the ones who think they're the most patriotic. I suppose this is the trend in most other countries as well. Learning is now a thing of the past. It's all about regurgitating what you're told and not about reasoning things out for one's self. Memorization has replaced thought.

It is perhaps a bit sad that most Americans are completely unfamiliar with the thoughts, writings and quotations of the founding members of this country, (founding fathers), and are content to sit back and let the country be stolen away from them by officials that are concerned only with promoting themselves and their careers. One might wonder about all the freedoms lost in the U.S. since September 11, 2001 and how the founding fathers might have perceived this loss of freedom in exchange for a perceived increase in security.

If I may be permitted a few select quotes;

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation. - President James Madison. 1751-1836

The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield. - President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free, it expects what
never was and never will be.
- President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

Americans promote themselves as law-loving and freedom-loving without ever stopping to realize that laws are the removal of freedoms. Certainly laws are not always bad things but when recognized as the loss of freedoms, definitely something to be approached with great caution.

I loved limerickman's comments about Bush going to trouble spots around the world. It occurred to me that we have a chicken and the egg scenario here. Does he send us to trouble spots or does he create the trouble spots by sending us?

Certainly every country has its problems and the U.S. is simply one more troubled country. Only on my bike do I really feel free. As long as I don't expect to be represented through bike lanes, signs, right-of-way and representation from law enforcement, while always respecting these rights for others (cars), I am free to ride!

:)
 

brightgarden

New Member
Oct 19, 2003
199
0
0
55
the thing that drives me most batty is that here we have a self-proclaimed champion "defending us" from terrorism. only, do we really want him to go about doing it (or anything) quite like THAT? i mean, the representative of our country behaving like a brat, quite frankly. it's embarrassing!

ack! i just don't want to get tooo started on this. i am not political.
 

Similar threads

A
Replies
4
Views
167
D