"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


Now she has him spreading and packing about 30 yards of stone dust
on
the trails so the goofy horses won't trip.

You really do need to earn some peanuts to go with the beer......

-----------------------------

I've been too tired at night to drink the beer. A shower and bed is
all I want.

On 8/20/13 9:55 AM, True North wrote:
Those Super Hawks sure we're nice in the late sixties.
I had a Honda 160 and it seemed like a toy next to my friend's Super Hawk.


Those Hondas were terrific, especially in comparison to the smaller
British bikes, which were much less reliable and as everyone knows
leaked oil.

On 8/20/2013 8:44 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 8/19/2013 11:56 PM, thumper wrote:
On 8/12/2013 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be more
accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession.

You keep making that assertion. I'd like to see you document and
quantify it. I think your proportion is off by an order of magnitude or
so. Show good accounting and I'll accept it.


Mr Luddite doesn't work for peanuts. I doubt you have the resources to
pay him to enlighten you.

-----------------------------

To the contrary, Mr. Luddite indeed now works for peanuts. Mrs. E.
bought him a six pack of Sam Adams for a week's work clearing trees,
branches and briars and using his tractor to create horse riding trails
in the woods beside his house.

Now she has him spreading and packing about 30 yards of stone dust on
the trails so the goofy horses won't trip.


Hard work builds character, something lacking in some of our liberal
friends. ;-)

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:31:03 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:39:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/20/13 9:55 AM, True North wrote:
Those Super Hawks sure we're nice in the late sixties.
I had a Honda 160 and it seemed like a toy next to my friend's Super Hawk.


Those Hondas were terrific, especially in comparison to the smaller
British bikes, which were much less reliable and as everyone knows
leaked oil.

I had a Honda 350 for a couple of weeks and I even rode it a couple
times. I got it in 10 boxes and put it back together, then I sold it.
I had a Benelli 250 for quite a while and I had a "fix it and sell it"
Yamaha 350 for a few weeks.

After fooling around with those, it was Harleys for me.

My buddy went through his Triumph and Norton days too but he ended up
on Harleys.
Between us we probably had over 30. We made money on every one of
them.

Well, I probably won't make any money on my Guzzi, but I'll get about 75% of what I paid for it. Of
course, that's assuming I outlive it, which I doubt.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

In article ,
says...

On 8/20/13 9:55 AM, True North wrote:
Those Super Hawks sure we're nice in the late sixties.
I had a Honda 160 and it seemed like a toy next to my friend's Super Hawk.


Those Hondas were terrific, especially in comparison to the smaller
British bikes, which were much less reliable and as everyone knows
leaked oil.

My first after a mini-bike was a Honda 90. Street bike that we used as a
dirt bike. It ran wide open at all times, bullet proof!

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:39:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 8/20/13 9:55 AM, True North wrote:
Those Super Hawks sure we're nice in the late sixties.
I had a Honda 160 and it seemed like a toy next to my friend's Super Hawk.


Those Hondas were terrific, especially in comparison to the smaller
British bikes, which were much less reliable and as everyone knows
leaked oil.

I had a Honda 350 for a couple of weeks and I even rode it a couple
times. I got it in 10 boxes and put it back together, then I sold it.
I had a Benelli 250 for quite a while and I had a "fix it and sell it"
Yamaha 350 for a few weeks.

After fooling around with those, it was Harleys for me.

My buddy went through his Triumph and Norton days too but he ended up
on Harleys.
Between us we probably had over 30. We made money on every one of
them.

When we were kids there were motorcycles galore on the farm. Me, my two
brothers, four cousins and friends of all of ours kept our bikes there.
Plus, one of my friends worked for the local Kawasaki dealer. He got one
of the two cycle, three cylinder Kaw 750's. Those things were radical.
More torque than you can imagine. I was riding it one day behind a semi,
on a two lane highway, went to pass, whipped around the truck, kicked it
down a gear and gassed it. Damned front end came up and scared the ****
out of me!

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:07:11 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

I had a Honda 350 for a couple of weeks and I even rode it a couple
times. I got it in 10 boxes and put it back together, then I sold it.
I had a Benelli 250 for quite a while and I had a "fix it and sell it"
Yamaha 350 for a few weeks.

After fooling around with those, it was Harleys for me.

My buddy went through his Triumph and Norton days too but he ended up
on Harleys.
Between us we probably had over 30. We made money on every one of
them.

When we were kids there were motorcycles galore on the farm. Me, my two
brothers, four cousins and friends of all of ours kept our bikes there.
Plus, one of my friends worked for the local Kawasaki dealer. He got one
of the two cycle, three cylinder Kaw 750's. Those things were radical.
More torque than you can imagine. I was riding it one day behind a semi,
on a two lane highway, went to pass, whipped around the truck, kicked it
down a gear and gassed it. Damned front end came up and scared the ****
out of me!

That Yamaha RX350 I had was the wheelstandingest motorcycle I ever
saw. It was grossly top heavy with too much weight on the back wheel
and a ton of torque that came on in mid range sort of by surprise.
Every novice I ever saw ride one lifted the front wheel and a scary
number of them crashed. That was how I got it. The new owner crashed
it on Rt 1 in Alexandria and would not get on it again.
I picked it up off the side of the road in my van and gave him $300
I ended up putting a pair of fork tubes in it, a fender and selling it
for $900. I am not sure I put 5 miles on it myself. I just rode it
enough to be sure it was OK before I sold it.
I did learn a little about that 3 coat paint system Yamaha used. I had
to shoot the fender. I did it all with those little "baby food jar"
sprayers. It actually didn't come out badly.

That Kaw 750 was a trip. Three cylinders and it was like it had no in
between, the throttle was more like a switch, the thing was off or on!!
And when it was on, it was on! In town you just had to burp the
throttle, no cruising with that thing.

On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:40:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:07:11 -0400, iBoaterer

wrote:



In article ,

says...



I had a Honda 350 for a couple of weeks and I even rode it a couple

times. I got it in 10 boxes and put it back together, then I sold it.

I had a Benelli 250 for quite a while and I had a "fix it and sell it"

Yamaha 350 for a few weeks.



After fooling around with those, it was Harleys for me.



My buddy went through his Triumph and Norton days too but he ended up

on Harleys.

Between us we probably had over 30. We made money on every one of

them.



When we were kids there were motorcycles galore on the farm. Me, my two

brothers, four cousins and friends of all of ours kept our bikes there.

Plus, one of my friends worked for the local Kawasaki dealer. He got one

of the two cycle, three cylinder Kaw 750's. Those things were radical.

More torque than you can imagine. I was riding it one day behind a semi,

on a two lane highway, went to pass, whipped around the truck, kicked it

down a gear and gassed it. Damned front end came up and scared the ****

out of me!



That Yamaha RX350 I had was the wheelstandingest motorcycle I ever

saw. It was grossly top heavy with too much weight on the back wheel

and a ton of torque that came on in mid range sort of by surprise.

Every novice I ever saw ride one lifted the front wheel and a scary

number of them crashed. That was how I got it. The new owner crashed

it on Rt 1 in Alexandria and would not get on it again.

I picked it up off the side of the road in my van and gave him $300

I ended up putting a pair of fork tubes in it, a fender and selling it

for $900. I am not sure I put 5 miles on it myself. I just rode it

enough to be sure it was OK before I sold it.

I did learn a little about that 3 coat paint system Yamaha used. I had

to shoot the fender. I did it all with those little "baby food jar"

sprayers. It actually didn't come out badly.

Back in the '70s I was riding in the dirt a lot (some enduros)and a friend had a Yamaha TT500 dirt bike. Heavy, but a ton of torque. He ended up looping it one day when it hooked up better than he expected, and he got rid of it soon after.

Another guy had a Maico 400. What a sweet bike! On a good dirt road, you could hang the back end out and it would just stay there, easily controlled by the throttle. No tendency to snap at all. Lots of fun.

In article ,
says...

"thumper" wrote in message ...

On 8/12/2013 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be
more
accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession.

You keep making that assertion. I'd like to see you document and
quantify it. I think your proportion is off by an order of magnitude
or
so. Show good accounting and I'll accept it.

----------------------------------

From various published sources:


It's really meaningless posting partisan scribblings.

I prefer facts and graphs showing facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-frank-didnt-
cause-the-housing-crisis/2011/11/28/gIQANqLH5N_blog.html

Perhaps you have actual facts showing the private market role in the
"sub-prime crisis" was not as depicted in the above link.
Probably not.

Finding a scapegoat and laying all the blame on the scapegoat is not the
mark of a reasonable person.

There are many reasons to consider Franks a certain form of scum.
But to use him as a scapegoat to exonerate all the other the real
"culprits" reeks of a mindless partisanship.
And yet you continue.
It doesn't work.

"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"thumper" wrote in message ...

On 8/12/2013 3:09 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

The "banksters" didn't cause the recession. I think it would be
more
accurate to call it the "Barney Frank & Co." recession.

You keep making that assertion. I'd like to see you document and
quantify it. I think your proportion is off by an order of
magnitude
or
so. Show good accounting and I'll accept it.

----------------------------------

From various published sources:


It's really meaningless posting partisan scribblings.

I prefer facts and graphs showing facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-frank-didnt-
cause-the-housing-crisis/2011/11/28/gIQANqLH5N_blog.html

Perhaps you have actual facts showing the private market role in the
"sub-prime crisis" was not as depicted in the above link.
Probably not.

Finding a scapegoat and laying all the blame on the scapegoat is not
the
mark of a reasonable person.

There are many reasons to consider Franks a certain form of scum.
But to use him as a scapegoat to exonerate all the other the real
"culprits" reeks of a mindless partisanship.
And yet you continue.
It doesn't work.

--------------------------------

Holy Crap. You post a link to someone's opinion blog giving his
opinions and think his take is entirely accurate? In fact, the bulk
of what he wrote supports my argument.

It didn't start in 2003 through 2008 where this guy focuses his
attention. By then Frank was starting to cover his tracks. It
started back in 1992, and Frank was in the midst of it all.