peacefuljeffrey

I think you are overboard saying that the guy should be arrested for the crime of disorderly conduct. How can you criminalize behavior that is not illegal just because some people have an irrational fear of it? If the irrational people get to set the measure of what is "disorderly" or "disruptive" or likely to instill fear, then we're all screwed. Would you please explain the rationale for arresting a calm, peaceful, law-abiding person who is not engaged in intimidating behavior, just because he is legally carrying a firearm openly? This may be true, but the guy is still within his legal rights. I'm sure they thought that Rosa Parks must be a bit out of her mind, too. So was Rosa Parks. You know, the kind of confrontation that you sometimes have to force to happen in order to get attention paid to your struggle to have your rights recognized. You're absolutely right. I bet you like being a member of the privileged class that does not get told daily that they are not entitled to carry the means of their own defense. You mentioned you would approve of him carrying concealed, but not open. How much you wanna bet that the woman who barred him from voting would object to him having a concealed gun, too? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They are never going to realize it. That's exactly why they got their asses kicked in this election, and why in three presidential election cycles, they've been the minority in congress. It's exactly why they didn't ascend to the presidency, and why they lost seats in the house and the senate. They are willfully out of touch with how things work in the real world. Failure to make the realization you mentioned is proof that someone just can't think properly. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A candidate who had spent 20 years in the senate who had anything at all to show for it worth touting should have been able to beat the incumbent. Kerry had ZIP. The American people said, "Um, why on earth would a 20-year senator not be talking daily about how much he's accomplished in all that time in the senate?!" Who'da thunk it? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Guns are exactly why he did not have my vote. 20 years of voting against my rights in the senate? And you want me to vote for you? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wait, you were being serious?? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Conway, Best wishes for your mom's health and recovery. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You the man! Blue skies to you and your neice! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I thought you were asking about, what do we do as a country now that we have the right president. I say we put Wayne LaPierre on the U.S. Supreme Court! Make a STAUNCH, PRO-INDIVIDUAL GUN RIGHTS SUPREME COURT DECISION, and return to life as normal, with a striking of all the anti-gun laws in the U.S. But hey, some people call me an extremist. "Extremism in pursuit of liberty is no vice." -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

HUAH! And yes, I have respect for someone (Kerry) conceding rather than launching bullshit legal attacks on a legitimate victor. And I would trade three Daschles for the defeat of that piece of shit Chuck Schumer, but hey, I don't want to get greedy here. As it is, we may now be looking at a pro-Second-Amendment Supreme Court soon. As I said, HUAH!

Brian, Blue skies to you, man. Oh maker of excellent skydiving gear!

I am just gratified that Florida went overwhelmingly for Bush. It gives CERTAIN LIE to the bullshit leftist newspapers here in Palm Beach County and nearby: The Palm Beach Post, The Sun-Sentinel, The Miami Herald... which, for the longest time, have been giving overwhelming space on their editorial pages (letters to the editor, specifically) to Kerry supporters who badmouthed Bush ad nauseum. I wonder how they will explain the lopsided anti-Bush coverage and exposure, given that Florida voted for Bush with a far greater margin than we did in 2000. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

All the talk about the provisional ballots left uncounted as yet in Ohio is kind of moot when you consider what they were talking about on NBC late Tuesday. They brought up the point that NOT ALL PROVISIONAL BALLOTS GET COUNTED because the fact that they ARE "provisional" means there is a serious doubt that the ballot is valid, i.e. the voter may be a felon, etc. They said that traditionally, 7%-20% of provisional ballots actually get counted towards the actual vote tally. Now that is to say, even if Kerry got every single provisional ballot vote in his favor, it's still not likely to be a large percentage of those outstanding ballots in the first place. Take 7-20% of however many provisional ballots were cast, and even if he gets all of them, he can't close the Ohio gap. I am one who does not delight until victory is assured beyond all doubt, so I'll just keep quiet for now. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I arrived at about 17:00 local time. I found only ONE person ahead of me at my alphabetical section (You know, "A-E") waiting to sign the voter register. I waited about two or three minutes while they sorted out the old guy ahead of me, and then I was done in under a minute. I got my vote-activation card (for the touch-screen machine), and cast my ballot in about 2 more minutes. I was walking out, I think, at about 17:11. NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER. And NO SIGN of problems whatsoever. I did hear one poll worker say that it was crowded earlier in the day. I'm so glad I don't get up early in the day. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If a person is going to be, in my view, worthy of voting, this kind of thing should already be readily transparent to him or her as the hoax that it is! In other words, if a person is so ill-informed about voting rights and issues that he thinks that, among other things, loans will be called, or unpaid parking tickets will keep him from voting (another hoax I heard of), that person is NOT informed enough to be steering the direction of the nation's leadership! I'm sorry. I don't want stupid or ignorant people voting. So I don't gripe when they don't bother to; I don't see a reason to implore them to; I don't think that the running of the country suffers if they are not heard from. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What are their scores without "extra points" for being helped by affirmative action programs? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, ironically just as I was reading this question, guess who NBC news was interviewing live? P. fucking DIDDY! You still have a problem seeing demagoguic pandering and people being "told to vote"? As far as I'm concerned, no one should be encouraged or pushed to vote. We would have better results if only those who cared enough to follow the issues and were motivated ON THEIR OWN to vote did so. Election results are tainted when people vote for the sake of casting a ballot, with shallow understanding/concern for the issues. You figure that in 2004 youth are more in tune with political issues than, say, in '68 or '71, etc.? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

BULL-FUCKING-[I]SHIT[/I]!! Try, "IT'S THE LADY'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK HER MIND AND HER FEELINGS." Liberals were bitching about supposed First Amendment infringements at the WTO protests, and at the national conventions for the two major political parties -- and surprise surprise! now they're trying to infringe on the First Amendment themselves, with a specious attempt to claim that a woman's free expression of her frustration is "voter intimidation." It comes down, once again, to liberals only wanting the rules to apply to their opponents. And only liberals should have the protection of the First Amendment. To suggest that she make a complaint just because a woman was commenting on the relative issue-ignorance of college students is very irresponsible, and contributes to the bullshit litigiousness that is spreading like a cancer in our country. Yeah -- just NOT when it comes to what rights others are entitled to. The fact is, for Daizey's case, SHE has the right to vote; the LADY has the right to express that she doesn't LIKE it; and Daizey does NOT have a right to not have to HEAR it. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't mean offense, but to a large degree I am inclined to agree with this woman. The "get out the vote" effort has seemed to do exactly that: spur people to vote just for the sake of casting a ballot. College "kids" (and they are "kids") are all about passion and love-or-hate of a given candidate, but NOT necessarily about substance, or careful analysis of an issue. I remember, I WAS a voting college student, and I can see the differences between me then and me now. Of course, the woman was making a generalization, a statement of prejudice if you will, and that's not 100% valid. There are many many intelligent, informed college students, but my personal feeling is that they are not the majority. Couple this with the FACT that demagogues have been out there pushing college students to vote in far greater numbers than they would have if only those college students who cared enough on their own to vote had done so. I think any time you artificially inflate the number of people who "care" about a subject (like voting for president) you skew the numbers badly and you get a huge influx of uninformed people voting. I, myself, recused myself from voting in two or three races on the ballot today because I didn't know either candidate and was unwilling to push a button just because I liked a name. When I was in college, I did that (albeit for student council, not president or congress). -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Excellent post. This excerpt really gets to the heart of what's wrong lately. I don't know how far it will go toward this negative extreme, but I am worried that it will get really really bad before sanity returns. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why? Because we permit it. - Jim I think that's bullshit. I don't "permit it." But there is only so much resisting it that any given individual can do short of actually rising up in rebellion against his government. Really; apart from voting against people who are abusive of power, and apart from sending letters and phone calls to elected representatives, what can the average person do to fight against oppressive laws and oppressive government actions? Once a politician is in office, he can decide to either respond to the expressed desires of his constituents or not. You could theoretically vote for, and elect, a guy who says he's pro-choice and anti-gun, and he might decide to change his mind after election and go against everything he ever promised you. He goes and makes some laws that are opposite of why you voted for him. Did you bring that on yourself? Does that happen because you "tolerate" it? This is why I feel that we are actually rather powerless to control things politically. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Insulting my: -knowledge -Polish heritage -background -parents -intelligence all in one post! When a moderator bans you for this post, are you going to be blaming me? I think you've earned a ban. I haven't been the subject of such insult in any three posts by any three people who can't stand me here. You are WAY over the line. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I believe that if Islam was truly a religion of peace, and its adherents truly were outraged at "radical Islamists" murdering innocent people by the thousands (as they do), it would be no big thing for the allegedly huge peaceful majority to FORCE TO FACE JUSTICE those among them who are the radical violent "minority." How hard would it be if you lived in an apartment building with 1000 other people, and just three of them were running a drug lab, to get them forced out, or to get attention brought upon them by the authorities? I don't see true cooperation from the Islamic world to get the terrorists among them exposed. I find it very hard to believe that no one -- no informant, no neighbor, no disenfranchised former member -- can come forward and tell us where the terrorists who keep kidnaping and beheading innocent people are hiding, or who they are. To me, that speaks of quiet complicity in these atrocities. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Bush! Johns are pathetic losers who have to pay for Dick or Bush! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't understand. What am I supposed to take from your post? That it's cool and fun to jump when you're intoxicated? That people should feel free to do it, as long as it feels like the right choice "for them?" That the lives and safety of those around "them" are not to be considered? I'm afraid I can't get with those concepts. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I thought it might be interesting and that I might wish to see it until I watched Ebert and Roeper utterly PAN it on their t.v. show the other night. They said that it relied on preposterous illogic and contrivances -- exactly the kind of thing I HATE in movies. I'll see it if it ever becomes available for free at the library.

Chris, Are you honestly defending this action? To impose a new law, to be irresponsbile and inform no one, and then to enforce it with aggressive behavior? I am pointing blame at the lawmakers and enforcers in this instance. The burden of letting the community know about this law was on them. They apparently found it important enough to let the cops know, they should have let the people know. First off, I am not sure this is a new "law" or just a rule made by the elections supervisor. You know, sort of how Clinton banned import of semi-auto rifles by "executive order," and Congress did not have to make a law to accomplish it. Second, I don't think that this guy would have fallen, or been tackled or punched, if he had not run from the police. I am in his favor regarding being allowed to take the photographs. I am not in his favor in that he seems to think he should be able to disobey a law enforcement officer's order. He could have stood there, stopped photographing for a few minutes, requested the cop's supervisor to clarify the cop's assertions, and the story would probably have ended in his favor, i.e. someone would have been threatened with a civil-rights-abuse lawsuit and they would have relented. The "reporter" took the wrong course. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"