peacefuljeffrey

So be thankful you're rid of her. I haven't had any major nasty breakups. I've had a few that I thought didn't have satisfactory explanations, though. Been lied to a few times about the whys and wherefores -- and yeah, about the "I still want to be friends and do things with you. I'll call you." Only once did I have a serious "fight" with animousity between us, but this was with a chick I hadn't been long involved with, no sex yet, just one night this difference of opinion thing erupted -- and let me know she was a hypersensitive psycho who took things way too seriously. Some people are worth forgetting. And then some, like my old high-school/college ex, are impossible to forget, and continue to pop into and out of your life for years afterward. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Still no comment on what I said -- that Target provides a gift receipt that can be given to the recipient so that they may do the return/exchange thing. Don't they do this by you? Why didn't the gift-giver include the gift receipt with the gift when giving it to you? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I have an idea. HOW ABOUT WE VOTE [B]NO[/B] ON [B]ALL[/B] OF THESE FUCKIN' AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE [B]THE STATE CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE PROPER PLACE TO WRITE LAWS[/B]?!? For fuck's sake, we have a [B]FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT[/B] that dictates how we may or may not PEN PIGS!!!!!! Rather than asking if we should vote for Amendment X or Y, we should be asking why the fuck these things are not just written as FLORIDA STATUTES!! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

"Me...me...me..." "Me too!" Jeez, won't someone POST already?! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Mmmbut he claims he's going to do it nonetheless, right? Just checking. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's called "chicanery." It's also called "demagoguery." (I guess we could call it "chicoguery," and from now on I think I will!) Democrats have made it their specialty. They love to pretend that just given enough money, they can make the world a wonderful perfect place. Of course, they can never be straight with you about how they're gonna get all the money... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Note: haven't looked at responses below yours yet... "Still no fucking idear." -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

But bill, they do this regarding gun ownership. Is it wrong then? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I wish I had seen this debate. I'd love for Bush, when questioned about signing the AWB, to say, "Um, if Mr. Kerry's congressional colleagues and he had sent me a bill to sign, I said I'd have signed it, and I was not given the opportunity to prove myself as good as my word -- by Mr. Kerry and the rest of Congress. It is not my job as president to dictate to Congress what causes it takes up and what laws it passes. Don't you want separation of powers in your government?!" I mean, What The Fuck, man? Why even bring that up? You know that Democrats turn to pussies when it comes election time, and will walk miles out of their way to avoid revealing that yes, they do want to increase restrictions on gun ownership, despite their bullshit camouflage as duck hunters. I would love for Bush to have explained, calmly and succinctly, the several major points that made the AWB useless: - It did not collect any guns that were already out there - It did not make it illegal to sell manufacturers' inventory of banned weapons - It did not make it illegal to own, possess, use, or transfer any of the banned weapons if they were made before the ban - It did not have any effect on full auto weapons, which have been strictly regulated since 1934 - It banned some weapons and left others unbanned, even though they had the same action, and fired the same ammunition at the same rate, but just didn't have the same "look" or accessories - Assault weapons were already used in a triflingly small percentage of gun crimes -- and guns are not the only weapons used in violent crime in the first place - The CDC analyzed fifty-some gun control studies and could not find evidence that gun control laws had had a bearing on the decrease in crime There is so much reason to question the nature of asking, "Would you support the AWB?" After all, it is not a given that it is something good. A better question is, "Do you think the AWB is a useful piece of legislation: why or why not?" Once again, he who frames the questions frames the debate, and it's not always done impartially. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is he looking into the microphone? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I did. Granted, it's not vehemently anti-NRA, but it chose to use the NRA as the example of groups or organizations "getting around" the law. JUST like the same liberal press harped on the false notion that compliance with the "Assault Weapons Ban" by NOT making guns that had the prohibited accessories was "exploiting a loophole." Here again, they are pointing to gun-people "exploiting a loophole." Why not use any other organization? Will they claim that this should be flattering, somehow, to the NRA, because it indicates how high-profile they are, how noticeable? I don't think so. They are implying a negative connotation to using the internet to avoid the broadcast restrictions of the McCain Feingold act which "everyone knows" is noble, right? and the example they use just happens to be the NRA doing the ignoble end-run around the details of the so-called reform law. You can say you don't see the big elephant in the middle of the room, but it sure is there. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Of course not. That's absurd. No more absurd than the Supremes finding McCain-Feingold a constitutional abridgment of the 1st Amendment. I take it you think it's not? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I include the Associated Press along with the other "news" organizations and corporations that exhibit "liberal bias." NOTE how this article cites the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION as an example of that nasty freedom that's somehow escaped the tyrannical control of the government. That's deliberate. They specifically chose that example for their article. And I believe it's designed to get people to think (a) that the NRA is manipulating and skirting the campaign laws (like the gun makers were "skirting" the assault weapons ban by making guns that complied with it) and (b) the law has to DO something about this rampant, unbridled example of freedom of expression without oversight by government. The article uses an easily maligned, misrepresented, and misunderstood organization (NRA) to accomplish the goal of getting people stirred up about the organizations "skirting" the campaign ad laws. It plants the seed of the image of the sinister NRA doing this -- and is careful NOT to plant a seed of imagining a helpful, sweet, benign organization like the ACLU doing the same -- even though it does. Notice that there are very likely dozens, perhaps hundreds of other organizations, that are doing what NRA is doing. Remember that the ACLU is subject to the McCain-Feingold restrictions on free speech the same way the NRA is, but the ACLU is not the organization used in the example -- and a discerning reader should want to know why. This is but one example of the subtle lies of omission/inclusion that liberal media outlets employ in order to manipulate public perception and sentiment. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Does the liberal media control Blockbuster, or are they simply a business putting into the stores that they own the movies that they think will give them the most profit? There are many corporations that support, financially, liberal causes (and there are those that support conservative causes, too, yes). Northwest Airlines gave discounted fares to people flying that first "Million Mom March," for example. Levi Strauss has donated to gun control causes. George Soros has given $18,000,000 of his own money to MoveOn.org to try to prevent Bush's reelection. Do you suppose that Soros is betting that if Kerry is elected, he will somehow recoup that money, with a profit? Or is it reasonable to possibly suspect that sometimes corporations, or even just big-money individuals, are willing to take a loss just to influence things along the lines of their ideology? I have no difficulty imagining that Blockbuster could -- could -- as a corporate entity with a social agenda (as some are known to have) have made a decision to overhype F-911 beyond the normal demand for it, just in the hope that they can spread its message. You know, flooding the market. I mean, liberals claim that gun manufacturers "flood the market" in places where there is less demand for guns than the number that they send to market there. (I don't know why they think the gun manufacturers would have an interest in making guns more likely to end up in criminals' hands -- which just makes guns and gun-makers look bad). So if there's any truth to the idea that sending more guns than the market desires results in them creeping into the black market somehow, there must be truth to the idea that putting more copies of F-911 out there might cause additional people to get infected with its message. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

WTF?! Way to misrepresent or just misunderstand what I have said, Kev! I have not said the media are not subject to governmental regulation. I have been saying that they should not BE subject to any governmental regulation that amounts to content censorship. PERIOD. Please don't allege to speak to paraphrasing my points if you're going to get it so wrong, Kev. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Really? I've been forced into diversions I didn't really want to take, because the govt. had closed roads for a motorcade. I think the govt can indeed dictate what route you drive. You are being disingenuous. It is quite clear to anyone willing to discuss this subject in good faith that I am not talking about sporadic, rare, extenuating circumstances, but instead on the everyday kind of occurrences, like driving to the store. I am talking about essentially "commandeering" your property -- stuff you bought for your personal (or commercial, in this case) use -- for the government to force you to use it as they see fit. They don't tell me that despite not wanting to, I have to drive your car from West Palm Beach to Miami first before you go up to Sebastian to skydive. They don't order me to give rides to people I would not ordinarily transport. They don't forbid me to give rides to specific people or kinds of people. They don't forbid me to make certain kinds of trips only after certain hours of the day... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

How do you explain the governmnet fining CBS for Janet Jackson's nipple? Or FOX for showing people licking whipped cream off of each other? Or fining Howard Stern? Either the gov't regulates content or it doesn't. Please show me where I EVER said I agreed with those things. I think the FCC is not a legitimate agency. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the power to regulate airwaves to the government. Hey, if liberals can claim that we don't have a right to AR-15s because the founders had never heard of them, and had no comparable technology, then sure as heck we can say that the government isn't entitled to powers that had not been dreamt of at the time of the founding, either. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Where have you been? WE DO! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Suspicious, you mean, like, several dozen men and women armed with machine guns and large quantities of high explosives storming the school? Is the plan for the guards to alert the police before they're shot to death? They say, "Information is power." So I guess "information" that a school is being taken hostage by terrorists will be used as a substitute for the power to actually physically defend the children and teachers. Yep. Bleeding hearts -- the kind who won't do a thing to make people able to fight terrorists -- remain keen on being able to have "closure" after a mass murder. Usually this means being able to properly identify shreds of who-was-who for a meaningful memorial service and burial. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, hate to break this to you, but his is relatively normal. Kerry is the one with the skinny, too-tall, misshapen bizarro head. And for christ's sake, Kerry's teeth are like an inch and a half fuckin' long!!!! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh, Dear Lord, for once in my life beeing M. Tyson for just one minute.. that would be pure fun WTF are you talking about? Are you implying that you would really like to be a muscular brute and beat me up? Why not just say that, instead of some cryptic junk about being Mike Tyson? I guess your statement can't be taken as a personal attack because you didn't say you'd beat me up -- for all I know you think it'd be fun to be M. Tyson so that you could rape women... But it's pretty obvious what you meant. Can't we keep this discourse civilized without letting our base desires cause it to descend into juvenile statements and implications of violent threats? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

As far as I'm concerned, if two parties sign a convention/treaty, as soon as the first party backs out and won't uphold the terms of the treaty, the second party is relieved of being burdened with compliance as well. That's how it works in the "social contract," as well. You and I agree to not harm or attack each other. But if you come to me to rob/beat/kill me unprovoked, I am no longer obligated to refrain from striking in a counterattack to preserve my own life. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's not surprising at all; look at which countries still execute juveniles (there are only 4 left, and the US is one of them). The US has executed more juveniles than all other nations combined over the last 25 years. Exactly the same attitude prevails. And the problem with executing juveniles is what?! The extent to which the system goes to prevent it, if they have committed an offense that warrants execution, so be it. Although I'm sure you are anti-death penalty. Honestly I don't think they execute quickly enough to be a true deterrant. Juveniles should be held to the same standard as adults. When proven they know what was going on, they stand the same penalty. I don't believe they are executing pre-teens! I have no problem, either, with the execution of 16 & 17 year old capital offenders. They may not have the maturity of a 25-year-old, for example, but that doesn't mean we should be unable to expect them to know murder is wrong, and punishable, and that they shouldn't commit it. Today on "All Things Considered," (NPR) they were talking about that. They repeated some of the comments by USSC justices. They had commentary by others who speak on the subject of juvenile execution. Some of those people were so preposterously bleeding heart as to talk about "studies" that found that "the sense of moral judgment" is last to develop in a human being, so that apparently, according to them, it's unfair of us to hold 16 and 17 year olds to a standard of NOT MURDERING. They're shooting for a "cruel and unusual" exemption, which this does not fit, anyway. You will never convince me that a 16 or 17 year old knows so much less about right and wrong than an 18 year old that he or she should not be held capitally accountable for murder. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Exxxxxactly! My point earlier was that some here say, "We have to show them, by example, how to treat prisoners/hostages/etc. humanely" -- as if the reason they torture and maim and kill innocent noncombatants is that they're simply unaware that this is wrong, and word of it being wrong just hasn't reached them yet. The problem with that theory is that there is no doubt they are already aware of those principles -- they just have no use for them, and won't abide by them! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I dunno... Every time I shop at Target, in addition to my itemized receipt, I am given a Gift Receipt, which does not have the prices on it, that can be given with the item so that it can be returned or exchanged. Maybe because they know they provide this, it makes them reluctant to accept returns because they wonder (rightly), "If this is a gift return, why no gift receipt?" -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"