Results 1 to 41 of 41
  1. #1
    slower than you
    Reputation: rockychrysler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,169

    OT? AZ Sen. McCain thinks your bike is just a toy

    According to Senator McCain, Congress has wasted billions of dollars on low-priority projects like bike paths...

    Congress is frivolously spending the Highway Trust Fund for pet projects like walkways and bicycle paths, at the expense of our nationís roads and bridges...

    More than $2 billion has been obligated for 5,547 bike paths and pedestrian walkways [see: https://coburn.senate.gov/public/ind...8-bea183470723 ]


    Particularly galling to McCain and Coburn is that Chairman of the House Transportation Committee Jim Oberstar (D-tk) is an "avid cyclist" who has a "zest for cycling that is as great as his enthusiasm for funding public infrastructure," the report spitefully reports, noting a news report that said the "passions often merge... [see: https://www.examiner.com/x-2429-Bicy...ainst-cyclists ]

    The most money--45 percent--has gone to off-road trails. Only 13 percent was spent on on-road bicycle infrastructure and only twelve percent on rails to trails projects. [see: https://image3.examiner.com/images/b.../Picture_2.png ] The imbalance reflects a bias against bicycling as a form of transportation as opposed to a form of recreation.


    Fortunately, "Coburn and McCain's anti-cycling arguments apparently didn't sit well with their colleagues. Their efforts to strip 600 individual spending projects--many of them bicycle related--failed by a vote of 73 to 25, Reuters reports. The Senate will have to reconcile this bill with a similar one passed by the House in July before sending it to the President to sign into law."[see: https://www.examiner.com/x-2429-Bicy...ainst-cyclists ]
    "May your trails be winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Ed Abbey
    http://rockychrysler.com/

  2. #2
    ~~~~~~~
    Reputation: Dirt_Diggler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,290
    What a jackass. Its obvious TREK's lobbyists are under funded.

  3. #3
    Bikes, Beer, and Sex
    Reputation: motorcyclemike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    221
    Glad I didn't vote for the presidency, I did vote for the sam adams beer though

  4. #4
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,285
    I disagree....while I want more trails like the rest of us, I don't see anything here that says he thinks bikes are toys. In fact, it seems to point out that McCain and the rest of the senate are upset that most of the 45% of the dollars committed thus far have been obligated to off-road trails rather than on-road initiatives. I'm not exactly a McCain supporter....but that's not the point....just trying to avoid inevitable and useless flak here.

    The point is that in a triage situation such as we find ourselves with respect to our transportation infrastructure in this country.....I would think a crumbling bridge or new lower emission/urban projects that reduce cars on the road with the most bang for the buck such as better public transportation (less cars per dollar spent) would be higher on the rack and stack list than projects that, unfortunately, cater to a smaller portion of the population. To reiterate....I would LOVE to see $2B dedicated to only new single track building or urban trail building....if such a thing were possible. But since we live in a country of other people....and most of those people prefer to drive cars.....it behooves us to think of ways to spend the money to reduce point to point trips in those cars rather than feather our own nest.

    Now.....flame on if you must.....but perhaps think about this thoughtfully before you spit out a reactionary reply....




  5. #5
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by rockychrysler
    According to Senator McCain, Congress has wasted billions of dollars on low-priority projects like bike paths...

    Congress is frivolously spending the Highway Trust Fund for pet projects like walkways and bicycle paths, at the expense of our nationís roads and bridges...

    More than $2 billion has been obligated for 5,547 bike paths and pedestrian walkways [see: https://coburn.senate.gov/public/ind...8-bea183470723 ]


    Particularly galling to McCain and Coburn is that Chairman of the House Transportation Committee Jim Oberstar (D-tk) is an "avid cyclist" who has a "zest for cycling that is as great as his enthusiasm for funding public infrastructure," the report spitefully reports, noting a news report that said the "passions often merge... [see: https://www.examiner.com/x-2429-Bicy...ainst-cyclists ]

    The most money--45 percent--has gone to off-road trails. Only 13 percent was spent on on-road bicycle infrastructure and only twelve percent on rails to trails projects. [see: https://image3.examiner.com/images/b.../Picture_2.png ] The imbalance reflects a bias against bicycling as a form of transportation as opposed to a form of recreation.


    Fortunately, "Coburn and McCain's anti-cycling arguments apparently didn't sit well with their colleagues. Their efforts to strip 600 individual spending projects--many of them bicycle related--failed by a vote of 73 to 25, Reuters reports. The Senate will have to reconcile this bill with a similar one passed by the House in July before sending it to the President to sign into law."[see: https://www.examiner.com/x-2429-Bicy...ainst-cyclists ]
    bikes are toys for most people..
    What would make you think that they aren't?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bike_Muchacho's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    158

    Maybe we should just let John know what we think?

    Perhaps when we get a little more content in this thread, we can just forward it to John for his comment? I'm sure he'd appreciate hearing from the voters that represent the "Biking Side" of AZ.

    EMAIL John McCain
    http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde...ct.ContactForm

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SPIDERS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    302
    Check out this bike lane in China. They sure love their toys!



    This guy in India is hard at play. Try riding down the street in AZ like this. You would probably get pulled over for obstructing traffic.



    Just had to share these in case the eyes of McCain ever wander through here.
    It's only skin, it'll grow back!!

    Save the drama for your mama!!!

    Porkchop Sandwiches!

  8. #8
    Saucy Size
    Reputation: Paul B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,482
    I'm sending $100 to the Oberstar re-election campaign.
    Don't be that guy! Read the forum guidelines.

  9. #9
    recovering roadie
    Reputation: dobbs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    589
    Maadjurguer is a realist. I agree. It's too much to expect a lot of catering to our little fringe group. Yes, that's what we are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer
    I disagree....while I want more trails like the rest of us, I don't see anything here that says he thinks bikes are toys. In fact, it seems to point out that McCain and the rest of the senate are upset that most of the 45% of the dollars committed thus far have been obligated to off-road trails rather than on-road initiatives. I'm not exactly a McCain supporter....but that's not the point....just trying to avoid inevitable and useless flak here.

    The point is that in a triage situation such as we find ourselves with respect to our transportation infrastructure in this country.....I would think a crumbling bridge or new lower emission/urban projects that reduce cars on the road with the most bang for the buck such as better public transportation (less cars per dollar spent) would be higher on the rack and stack list than projects that, unfortunately, cater to a smaller portion of the population. To reiterate....I would LOVE to see $2B dedicated to only new single track building or urban trail building....if such a thing were possible. But since we live in a country of other people....and most of those people prefer to drive cars.....it behooves us to think of ways to spend the money to reduce point to point trips in those cars rather than feather our own nest.

    Now.....flame on if you must.....but perhaps think about this thoughtfully before you spit out a reactionary reply....

  10. #10
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,231
    i did read Coburn's page, and its a different perspective. The one citation about a million spent on a bike lane in a town of 2,000.

    I think bike lanes, for the transportation Dept, are ok. I have to agree that offroad trails seem to stretch the mission of the tranportation Dept.

    That all said, I wonder what the landscape of our country would look like if they gave 4B in say $500 increments for commuter bikes - Cash for Commuters program?

    That also said, I nearly got taken out at 5 miles an hour by a woman pulling out of a gas station today who clearly saw me and just assumed I'd get out of her way. I rolled around and put a nice dent in her door with my cleats when she told me "I saw you, shut up!"
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chongoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,937
    Just to clarify.
    I think Off-road trails does not refer to dirt or singletrack, but to paved trails and walk ways like the ones being constructed to Tempe. When these are complete I will be able to get to work off the road for more of my trip. Lots of people in Tempe ride bikes for transportation so I think it's money well spent.
    These types of trails have more than just transportation benefits. they also light and clean up dirty, run down canal areas.

  12. #12
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,231
    Quote Originally Posted by chongoman
    Just to clarify.
    I think Off-road trails does not refer to dirt or singletrack, but to paved trails and walk ways like the ones being constructed to Tempe. When these are complete I will be able to get to work off the road for more of my trip. Lots of people in Tempe ride bikes for transportation so I think it's money well spent.
    These types of trails have more than just transportation benefits. they also light and clean up dirty, run down canal areas.

    good point. neither "side" highlighted that difference. by phrasing it as recreation, I assumed trails.
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  13. #13
    slower than you
    Reputation: rockychrysler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by chongoman
    Just to clarify.
    I think Off-road trails does not refer to dirt or singletrack, but to paved trails and walk ways like the ones being constructed to Tempe. When these are complete I will be able to get to work off the road for more of my trip. Lots of people in Tempe ride bikes for transportation so I think it's money well spent.
    These types of trails have more than just transportation benefits. they also light and clean up dirty, run down canal areas.
    right. i am confident the language 'off road trails' does not equate to what we would consider to be singletrack, but rather to any bike path that is not a part of an established roadway, thus making it an 'off road trail.'

    pretty sure about that.

    also, according to a reuters article on the same subject, "Critics [McCain and Coburn] complained that these projects were unneeded and some even wasteful. Backers noted that they amounted to less than 1 percent of the $67.7 billion in the legislation..." see: http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...58G6LV20090917
    "May your trails be winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view." - Ed Abbey
    http://rockychrysler.com/

  14. #14
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    Do we really need one more reason to believe that Senator McCain is a satanic robot sent from the underworld?

    Even if he loved bicycles... still a paranoid, murderous nutjob.

  15. #15
    Beetlejuice!
    Reputation: Solrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Velokid1
    Do we really need one more reason to believe that Senator McCain is a satanic robot sent from the underworld?

    Even if he loved bicycles... still a paranoid, murderous nutjob.

    Wait...I thought that was Cheney??
    "too weird to live, too rare to die" - HST
    "Oh Gravity, thou art a heartless bitch" - Sheldon

  16. #16
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Velokid1
    Do we really need one more reason to believe that Senator McCain is a satanic robot sent from the underworld?

    Even if he loved bicycles... still a paranoid, murderous nutjob.
    It could be worse though...much much worse...

    He seems like a nice guy, and I don't blame him for our drive to pave the world. I put the blame on everyone that feels the need to procreate and use more and more resources. That doesn't mean that I support him without question- Palin was a death sentance for his run. There's no way I could ever agree to that kind of idiocy. The only thing worse than a looser is a quitter.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chongoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    It could be worse though...much much worse...

    He seems like a nice guy, and I don't blame him for our drive to pave the world. I put the blame on everyone that feels the need to procreate and use more and more resources. That doesn't mean that I support him without question- Palin was a death sentance for his run. There's no way I could ever agree to that kind of idiocy. The only thing worse than a looser is a quitter.
    I used to get grumpy when I read statements like this, but now it just makes me currious. Not a flame here at all I justt want to understand what you're saying.

    If you believe that people should not procreate due to the resources they use in doing so what are you doing to correct population growth besides not procreating.
    You like to point to people in the phx valley for their glut, growth, use of water etc as if NoAZ was rich in water and resources and without sprawling development.
    There are people living in the valley with kids who live with less carbon impact than many of the childless people in places like NoAZ. I don't think responsible procreation is to blame for this problem. Do you really think the non-procreation agenda is productive and realistic??

    I definitely think having excessive amounts of kids in this day and age is not a good move and there should be tax structres and health insurance structures that discourage that rather than encourage it. But placing the blame for the worlds problems on "people who feel the need to procreate?" Come one man.... Who doesn't feel the need form time to time (or all the time)

  18. #18
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,673
    Quote Originally Posted by chongoman
    I used to get grumpy when I read statements like this, but now it just makes me currious. Not a flame here at all I justt want to understand what you're saying.

    If you believe that people should not procreate due to the resources they use in doing so what are you doing to correct population growth besides not procreating.
    You like to point to people in the phx valley for their glut, growth, use of water etc as if NoAZ was rich in water and resources and without sprawling development.
    There are people living in the valley with kids who live with less carbon impact than many of the childless people in places like NoAZ. I don't think responsible procreation is to blame for this problem. Do you really think the non-procreation agenda is productive and realistic??
    I didn't say that I believed they shouldn't procreate, I said that doing so is using vast amounts of resources. There are more impacts than just carbon as well. There has to be some kind of limit though right?
    I definitely think having excessive amounts of kids in this day and age is not a good move and there should be tax structres and health insurance structures that discourage that rather than encourage it. But placing the blame for the worlds problems on "people who feel the need to procreate?" Come one man.... Who doesn't feel the need form time to time (or all the time)
    Sorry, but I f eel that is the most selfish thing one can do. People don't have kids for the "world", they have kids for themselves, because they want kids. That selfishness may not be "wrong", as it's biological and instinct, but it's selfish nonetheless.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chongoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    I didn't say that I believed they shouldn't procreate, I said that doing so is using vast amounts of resources. There are more impacts than just carbon as well. There has to be some kind of limit though right?
    Sorry, but I f eel that is the most selfish thing one can do. People don't have kids for the "world", they have kids for themselves, because they want kids. That selfishness may not be "wrong", as it's biological and instinct, but it's selfish nonetheless.
    Agreed. there should be limits.
    disagreed re: the selfishness thing. from this perspective you can call anyone selfish. I can say our bike habit is unnecessarily using resources that would be better directed to sustaining the world (most of the bike economy is not directed to bike commuters). I can say purchasing cars is more damaging in this aspect than having kids through trade, global markets etc and we should abolish cars. I can say that we should live mud huts that are renewable. Due to our selfishness we chose comfort. there is not one smoking gun to for the sustainability argument.
    We're all selfish. it's human nature to be selfish and we all manifest our selfishness is different ways. the key is not to be guilty about this and behave with reason.

  20. #20
    AZ Biker Chick
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    169
    McCain is a A

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coconinocycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,002
    although i highly respect McCain for his service to our country and just being a tough guy in general, i do feel that he is a dinosaur of a bygone era. {a president in 2009 who never sent an e-mail?} when cold war "sensibilities" and leaders who believe in them & use them as scare tactics against a segment of the population too loopy to know better pass the torch to a new generation things will slowly change...............McC. *is* a member of the very rich & i cannot help but think that this inparts a level of dis-connect with the general population, some of who think that getting around by bike is a good, healthy, constructive, fun thing to do.............for the record, i'm very non-partisan - i take everyone on a individual basis - but i gotta thank him for outting that nut job Palin when he took her on to sink the campaign after he decided he didn't want to be president after all............way to take one for the team, Mc C!
    steve garro el jefe/el solo. coconino cycles www.coconinocycles.com www.coconinocycles.blogspot.com

  22. #22
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,673
    Quote Originally Posted by coconinocycles
    although i highly respect McCain for his service to our country and just being a tough guy in general, i do feel that he is a dinosaur of a bygone era. {a president in 2009 who never sent an e-mail?} when cold war "sensibilities" and leaders who believe in them & use them as scare tactics against a segment of the population too loopy to know better pass the torch to a new generation things will slowly change...............McC. *is* a member of the very rich & i cannot help but think that this inparts a level of dis-connect with the general population, some of who think that getting around by bike is a good, healthy, constructive, fun thing to do.............for the record, i'm very non-partisan - i take everyone on a individual basis - but i gotta thank him for outting that nut job Palin when he took her on to sink the campaign after he decided he didn't want to be president after all............way to take one for the team, Mc C!
    Name a politician who isn't "rich".

    I think McCain has done a pretty good job of being bipartisan and not some ultra-conservative wacko who quotes "God" every 2 seconds. Are there better? Possibly. Are there worse? Yes. Drawing "party lines" and "generation lines" is when you fall into the traps of each IMO.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  23. #23
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    C'mon Jayem... simple math will demonstrate that each person having 1 child does not increase population. And logic will tell ya that you wouldn't be here if it weren't for procreation.

    Overpopulation of the planet is a problem where the energy crisis is concerned, but blaming people for having kids is not necessarily the logical solution, even though it's the solution that takes the least effort to come up with. The analogy here would be to solve the energy crisis by recommending that people don't move around the planet but instead sit still all day.

    Our energies are better spent on educating (or legislating) people about how to not be carbon hogs in the multitude of ways we are hog-like.

  24. #24
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Velokid1
    C'mon Jayem... simple math will demonstrate that each person having 1 child does not increase population. And logic will tell ya that you wouldn't be here if it weren't for procreation.
    That's assuming we're not already past the point of "too much", and while having 1 will be better than having 2, having zero would get us back to the right level quicker.
    Overpopulation of the planet is a problem where the energy crisis is concerned, but blaming people for having kids is not necessarily the logical solution, even though it's the solution that takes the least effort to come up with. The analogy here would be to solve the energy crisis by recommending that people don't move around the planet but instead sit still all day.
    Well, it's also not right to ignore this IMO. All possiblities need to be considered, but I know there are people who can't EVER possibly imagine that we have to damn many people, but one look a the Phoenix valley should be enough for anyone. Often the simplest answers are the best. I am not sure we can overcome this with technology, we simply need a sustainable amount, then technology can do the rest. I guess my major problem with this issue is that most people won't even consider this side, they just close their minds and think that God or something will fix it all. Also what about food? How quickly is farmland being coverted/used for things that produce short-term benefits or just eradicated? How much food is available for the entire world and not just the US that can pay for it? There's far more than just "energy" to worry about. At what point is the air-quality unhealthy? Is there always a work-around that will allow building to continue? Etc...
    Our energies are better spent on educating (or legislating) people about how to not be carbon hogs in the multitude of ways we are hog-like.
    I agree to some extent, but we have a long ways to go before people consider the planet, other people, or resources, before themselves. That's possibly where big evil government comes in, but then people will complain about the big evil government. No politician will stand up for what is necessary though. Who wants to be the guy known for telling us what we can't do? (even if it is necessary)...
    Last edited by Jayem; 09-28-2009 at 09:47 AM.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  25. #25
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    That's assuming we're not already past the point of "too much", and while having 1 will be better than having 2, having zero would get us back to the right level quicker.

    Well, it's also not right to ignore this IMO. All possiblities need to be considered, but I know there are people who can't EVER possibly imagine that we have to damn many people, but one look a the Phoenix valley should be enough for anyone. Often the simplest answers are the best. I am not sure we can overcome this with technology, we simply need a sustainable amount, then technology can do the rest. I guess my major problem with this issue is that most people won't even consider this side, they just close their minds and think that God or something will fix it all.

    I agree to some extent, but we have a long ways to go before people consider the planet, other people, or resources, before themselves. That's possibly where big evil government comes in, but then people will complain about the big evil government. No politician will stand up for what is necessary though. Who wants to be the guy known for telling you what you can't do.
    oh, nice. Playing the God card are we?

  26. #26
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,673
    Quote Originally Posted by yetisurly
    oh, nice. Playing the God card are we?
    Just for you.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  27. #27
    banned
    Reputation: JrockFeltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by yetisurly
    oh, nice. Playing the God card are we?


  28. #28
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Just for you.

    Well, it isn't working.
    Besides, your carbon footprint is bigger than mine, even though I have offspring. I guarantee it.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chongoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,937
    Sometimes looking to the past can help us create solutions for the problems of today. I think this innovation of the 80's may satisy both sides of the debate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukSvj...x=0&playnext=1
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by chongoman; 09-28-2009 at 12:44 PM.

  30. #30
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,673
    Quote Originally Posted by yetisurly
    Well, it isn't working.
    Besides, your carbon footprint is bigger than mine, even though I have offspring. I guarantee it.
    Um...so? I never said my carbon footprint was smaller. I'm just like everyone else, I want to have a bike, and a car, and do what I want all the time.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  31. #31
    banned
    Reputation: JrockFeltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by yetisurly
    Well, it isn't working.
    Besides, your carbon footprint is bigger than mine, even though I have offspring. I guarantee it.

    He does know everything...

  32. #32
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Um...so? I never said my carbon footprint was smaller. I'm just like everyone else, I want to have a bike, and a car, and do what I want all the time.
    that is why you are the problem, not the answer.

  33. #33
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by JrockFeltaz
    He does know everything...
    I agree. He does.

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation: JrockFeltaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by yetisurly
    I agree. He does.

    it's quite impressive. from suspension to environmentalism to avalanches to phoenix weather.

  35. #35
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by JrockFeltaz
    it's quite impressive. from suspension to environmentalism to avalanches to phoenix weather.
    yeah, it is like he, well, he just knows!

  36. #36
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,673
    Quote Originally Posted by yetisurly
    that is why you are the problem, not the answer.
    I didn't claim to be the answer, I stated the problem. ???
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  37. #37
    sprocket
    Reputation: yetisurly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    I didn't claim to be the answer, I stated the problem. ???
    as far as you know.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ob1Hoagie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by JrockFeltaz
    it's quite impressive. from suspension to environmentalism to avalanches to phoenix weather.
    Ya, reading this thread he is a legend in his OWN mind !

  39. #39
    Master Gardener
    Reputation: Velokid1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Um...so? I never said my carbon footprint was smaller. I'm just like everyone else, I want to have a bike, and a car, and do what I want all the time.
    Alright then brother, you convinced me... I'm going home tonight to drown one of our two children so that everyone else can drive their cars 30 minutes to work each day and buy food from another continent. Makes sense.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,252
    how about a breeding license?

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Scary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    197
    We shouldn't be spending ANYTHING thats not absolutely vital.WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY!!!!!!Enjoy what you have now and live with it.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.