Disclaimer

After reviewing the weather and the fact that it's 2:30AM and I'm still awake, I don't foresee this ride happening for me tomorrow (today).

I just got back from Cici's, if y'all consider that pizza.

Delicious.

So, how is that the credit cards fault again? You can't dispute a charge you're contractually obligated to honor.

Well, you CAN dispute it, but... obviously you saw where that got you.

I can't remember the last time I rode my Hayabusa WITHOUT gear.

But, I usually don't get it out unless it's heading to the dragstrip or long distance commuting.

...and I'm only 220lbs.

The SV, well....that's a little different story.

I haven't; I just anticipate that being one of the mods I'd do to make it more comfortable.

squirrely in what situations?

I dunno really how to describe it, maybe I needed more seat time, but I also think cruisers are (aka the Vrod I rode was) squirrely too.

I think my definition boils down to my comfort-level with the bike responding as quickly to my inputs as I want it to, or in some cases as slowly as required when at speed.

I guess I'm just so used to "sportbikes" now or bikes with similar chassis/handling characteristics that anything that doesn't similarly respond feels dangerous to me. That's why I said it may just be me.

Credit cards get ripped off too..

Yea, but it's not YOUR money until you pay the statement.

That's the key and pretty critical difference.

Hmm, I tried a couple searches but the key term I settled on was "visor" because I didn't think "Bell" was a very good search term -- and since your post in that thread contains "shield", but no mention of visor... that's how I missed it.

I suppose the funny thing is, I remember reading that post when you posted it.

I'll shop bandit 1200/1250's, or SV1000's with clubman bars, etc.

Have you ever ridden one with clubman bars? It feels squirrely to me. TPoppa has/had some on his SV.

.... random update/question.

I've put about 3 rides around town (~40mi) on my Bell Vortex, and the visor has started to delaminate/spiderweb on the INSIDE. Whatever coating/film they use isn't up to snuff on my particular helmet I guess

I sent an e-mail to STG to see what they'd like to do. I like the helmet, but the visor I have is apparently defective.

Anyone else have this issue w/ visors or coatings on them? It literally looks like a mini-spiderweb or frosting on the inside of the visor, and only on the leftside.

Edit: Email back from STG

"it is a known issues affecting only a handful of models. I will send you a new one. Just discard the old one."

I'm happy with that response.

This is exactly the type of crap I'd expect to happen hanging out with Kevin.

This is unacceptable.

Girls, girls, you're both pretty...

Nevaaar!

The bailout (aka nationalization of GM) was the additional argument you presented as a rebuttal to an instance that makes Obama a communist.

And, keeping with the same vein as my original argument (that if one item makes Obama a communist, then other presidents are also communist), plus the additional one you added (the automaker bailout) -- I countered with the bank bailout.

Fact:

Hey' date=' Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right.

[/i']

You actually were trying to start a debate between Bush's bailout of the banks vs Obama's bailout of the automakers. There is no real debate, as I clearly stated. So your point is mute. The semantics of ownership of a product versus ownership of a company can be discussed if you'd really like, but you're simply reaching for a shred of anything to argue about.

Ummm, you turned this into a debate about bailouts. And speaking of semantics - moot.

The whole genesis prior to your input was about baseless opinions, and how I'm hypocritical. So, if you'd rather return to that and highlight my rampant hypocrisy, I'll gladly continue to take the ribbing on that whilst I pick and choose what positions I care to defend since I need some stimulation today. This IS the interwebz afterall.

That's your opinion, not backed by facts of course.

No, the only opinion was the 'potatoe, patatoe' debate, but we can get dive into the nitty gritty of that if you REALLY want to - which is why I asked you for your relative definition of 'ownership' that you neglected to answer.

I have some time today.

What do you consider "ownership"?

As far as I'm concerned, loans vs. stock offering is a 'potatoe, patatoe' argument when it comes to the gov't. Each were structured to provide the necessary economic benefit intended, and are not intended to be for indefinite periods for payback on the 'investment'.

And since I'm kinda sorta in the industry, I actually do think we avoided a lot of additional economic hardship by allowing GM and Chrysler to pay their tier 1 (which in turn paid tier II and III suppliers), which also benefited a lot of the Japanese and European, and Ford since many of the sub-suppliers are the same. It wasn't about just GM and Chysler, but their thousands of suppliers and the people they employed as well. This also kept the suppliers doors open, production volumes higher, so the MSRP on your BMW, Ford, or Honda didn't jump up $6,000 because the sub-suppliers can't afford to eat the cost of the production volumes they're originally tooled for.

Margins are typically pretty slim in the auto industry, which are only made up through volume, niche vehicles, lean production, or trucks ('Merica!)

That, and the auto industry bailout put GM and Chrysler on equal footing as the other automakers in regards to labor costs. Since those other companies have gov't healthcare, that's an expense they don't have to bear. So, now the American companies don't either -- which sucks for the American blue collar guy because that's going to be an additional expense out of his or her pocket instead of the large corporation's pocket.

So obviously because one action was taken in one industry for a certain time period to prevent an economic catastrophe in that sector, Obama is a communist.

Got it.

So, explain the Wall Street bailouts initiated by Bush? Is he a communist/marxist too?

o·pin·ion Noun 1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

As long as you acknowledge that. And water tastes like bread.

Though I try to have some validity, fact, expertise (either personal or professional), academic, or scientific backing of my opinions.

Funny... you seem to have that opinion of anybody that disagrees with you.

Not necessarily, I'm more than open-minded when it comes to viewing issues, but "Because I said so" or "because that's what *I* think" without supporting information are ignorant opinions and not worth respecting or listening to in the least, save for the very few issues where you just have to agree to disagree because they don't have solid or credible supporting information either way or are moral/ethical issues.

So, for example, calling Obama or any politician a Marxist, Communist, or whatever without an understanding of those terms in the entirety, just because some traits of their ideology fall inline with some of the philosophies is nothing more than exposing your own ignorance. And using that psychology that because some ideas overlap between ones personal ideology and that of another makes them one, then that would make almost EVERY president a marxist, communist, or whatever ideology you're trying to bias as negative in the Obama example.

It's old, tired, and immature at best because it shows a sore lack of education on the issues.

But of course, that's just my opinion, because I said so.

I don't blindly follow anyone charles from Salem, not even the "communist in chief".

The baseless opinions you spew are middle-schoolish.

The difference is I'm sarcastic 90% of the time.

Marxist America hater.

Do you ever hear yourself talk?