peacefuljeffrey

Everybody, start offering ideas about potential solutions to voter fraud. What system could we employ to eliminate the ability of people to register fake names/dead people/dogs/cats, etc.? One idea: What if we simply required a photo I.D. along with social security card to vote? That way, registering would be moot. Of course, this is something I have not thought long on -- mere minutes. Already I see that people can make fake driver's licenses, and fake SS cards... Frankly I see it as hopeless. I think that our elections system is riddled with fraud, NO election is truly fairly executed and legitimate, but we all pretend that they are, because it's terrifying to think that on the whole, at least, they're not. And I'm certain that this is not nearly a new phenomenon. It's as old as voting is. It's as old as this country is. It's not stopping, not going away. It's just getting a lot more press these days, that's for sure. What to do about it?? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The general thrust of Robert Acosta's quote there seems to be, "You should oppose the war, because our guys get hurt." That's war. That's expected to happen. If we didn't fight any war (justified or not) because of fear ofhaving wounded, we'd never fight any wars and we'd be conquered as a result, at some time. Yes, it sucks that people lose arms in war. It's not a reason to never fight for what is right. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I am voting for Bush. I am not voting for him because I "feel safer" or that I "ate the fear" (great phrase, by the way), but because I would feel "less safe" with Kerry. There are many other reasons, but that's the one you're addressing in your post. Just thought I'd point out that not all people who're voting for Bush are doing so because they "ate the fear." Ciels- Michele Well, for one thing, Kerry is hard after banning us from being able to own guns. On a personal level, guns are the most useful items for personal protection. Sure, I can't use a personal arm to shoot down missiles launched at my country -- but that's for our military to do. But look to Israel, where terrorist suicide bombers are, now and then, shot dead by armed civilians before they can detonate themselves. I even read sometime not long ago about an armed woman in Israel stopping such a bombing by shooting the bomber! Kerry parrots a bullshit line that he believes in "the 2nd amendment as interpreted" -- which means, "as interpreted to mean only if you're in the national guard may you have a gun. He accepts, as a gift, a shotgun of a type he voted to ban. He cynically blames Bush for not extending the bogus "assault weapons ban" -- but if that was a bad thing, it was Congress' fault, for not sending a bill to Bush to sign! Kerry is a liar who tries to get pro-gun votes by bullshitting us and pretending he's a gun owner "just like us." Suuuure you are, Senator. You know all about protecting oneself while living at the edge of a crappy area, or having to work late at night and drive home on deserted streets through bad areas that must be traversed to get home. I sure wish I had bodyguards like you do, so I wouldn't feel the need to arm myself in case I find myself in trouble with violent criminals. I wouldn't vote for Kerry in a thousand years. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, and now they're all worried about who now has the equipment to produce nuclear weapons -- which Iraq "didn't have," -- now that the nonexistent equipment has "disappeared." Amazing how liberals can be worried about the disposition of things they say never existed. Well, whatever's efficacious at the moment for use in trying to discredit the opposition, I guess... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I quite honestly do not understand what is taken to be attacking about that. I didn't single out a poster or posters. I didn't throw out a name-calling. Saying that someone is wearing figurative blinders? Is that much different from coming out and saying, "I think you're blinding yourself to what's going on?" Saying that I don't think something is mature -- that's a problem? Whew! Talking about stuff here is getting to be a minefield! Because I sure as shit am not trying to insult anyone with what I said. edit: So what I mean is, sorry if it came across as offensive. It wasn't meant that way when I said it, and I didn't recognize it that way. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That site has some cooool games! I love Centrifuge and Constellations. Of course, after 20 minutes of Centrifuge, I can barely see straight! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No....Michael Moore isnt worth my time. Ed No, seriously, you should watch this clicky. For real. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You've got to do something with the leftovers, right? - Jim Well, liberals don't cook -- especially not their women, since that would be too gender-role-imposing. So you can hardly expect them to whip up a good 6-month-fetus-casserole. They have no experience at domestic skills like food prep. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm pretty sure that I have read recently they think they might be able to get stem cells from sources other than human embryos. Why don't liberals look into that angle? Or do they just like using embryos? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why does it seem that those on the right love to come up with names like this? Reminds me of what the kids on the playground used to do to cause a fight. Name calling. Do you or anyone else feel that name calling instead of fact finding and proof helps swing people to your side? Are you kidding me? I don't see bumper stickers with bad puns on names that are done by leftists? "Time to trim the Bush's" (sic) and stuff about "Shrub"... More liberal blinders on your eyes, I guess, keeping you from ever seeing that democrats also do what you accuse republicans of doing. edit: Oh, I forgot: "Lick Bush in '04" Reeeeal mature, lefties. But OH! It's the RIGHT that does the name calling and juvenile stuff, riiiiight? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This guy is a news director?! He writes like shit! Why would there be a period between these two sentences? In fact, the first one is not a sentence, but a fragment! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I've said repeatedly that I don't like Bush, but will vote for him over Kerry because there is zero doubt that Kerry opposes the right to keep and bear arms, which I view as very important. I never said I'm voting for Bush because I like him or believe he's always right. You are hyperbolizing. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Of course Kerry flip flops. No one denies that. most democrats admit that kerry is bad but not as bad as Bush. Bush has been criticized -- by Kerry -- for NOT flip-flopping: for sticking with a bad plan even when it was shown to be bad. (his opinion, anyway). How has Bush been a worse flip-flopper? I'm not talking about torturing U.S. citizens. I'm talking about torturing foreign nationals, in a foreign land (or maybe if they've reached U.S. soil) who are suspected to be terrorists -- duh, WITH EVIDENCE! Strong evidence. I drop the bar on the burden of proof with things like this. If you get a guy who is known to be a terrorist and find "ooh, they didn't read him his rights," he doesn't go free, he's executed. That is not contradictory with saying I don't accept encroachment of liberty in the name of making us safer. I have NEVER said I support that. Opposing loss of liberty does not stand at odds with being unopposed to fucking up our enemies by whatever means necessary. All I said was -- and this is what I think you're stuck on -- is that I don't LIKE the idea of torturing our enemies, but I won't cry over it if it happens. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Might? Some cost a lot more than that. I know of one firm that lost a case with $1M in costs (multiple defendants and experts). Some insurance companies match the Plaintiff's costs dollar for dollar. All costs, for everything, are out of control ridiculous. When it costs tens of thousands of dollars to drag some "expert" into court so that he can say what you PAID him to say (where the fuck is the credibility in that?!) what the fuck do you expect, a cheap case? All of these costs are inflated to an absurd degree. Clinton went millions into debt (paid off for him by the suckers who still liked him, of course) defending against the accusations made against him. There's no fucking way that prosecuting OR defending a court case should cost anything near as much as it does. It's because people have gone insane and lost all rationality and perspective. Tort reform is desperately needed in this country. Look at how many dozens of cases have been brought -- AND LOST -- against the firearms industry, using the same bogus fraudulent theory of liability... and still the cases continue. Their admitted goal: to bankrupt the firearms companies one-by-one through the exorbitant costs of litigation, until there are no more, and then oooh lookie, a de facto ban on guns, since no one will make them anymore because they can't afford to. (No answer yet from the plaintiffs as to who they expect will make guns for the police and military to use.) And the Democrats poisoned the bill that would have stopped this injustice. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You have not given us enough information about your wife's anecdotal case to prove the need for this amendment. You also haven't shown how a lawyer getting to keep between 10 and 30 percent of a malpractice judgment is reason for the lawyer to not be willing to take the case. WHY DID THE LAWYERS REFUSE TO TAKE YOUR CASE, IF IT IS AS CLEAR-CUT A CASE OF MALPRACTICE AS YOUR STORY MAKES IT SEEM? HAD THE [I]STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUN OUT? You did say it was 18 years later... How long is the S of L? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I damn near ruined my minitor this morning by soitting my coffee all over it when I read this nonsense. Lawyers and malpractice lawsuits are like wolves and a bloody deer carcass. This has bevome sue-happy country where every moron wants to get-rich-quick any way they can...ethical methods or not. Doctors have a big fucking bullseye on their back because why? Because they have money. These jack-asses are getting rich off of suing innocent doctors. Truth. Especially the part about people turning into greedy sickos when they think they can sue someone to spend the rest of their life rich. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Glad you admit that Kerry flip-flops. Most liberals won't come within ten miles of admitting that. Corner them, and they'll tell you all about something bad that George W. Bush did. I don't think I contradicted myself. I don't have much of a problem with mistreating Al Qaeda members. I am not crazy about torture in general, though. I will not accept trampling American rights -- by American forces or agencies -- for the claimed purpose of winning on behalf of America. Those things are not contradictory. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Funny you would gripe about our forces not obeying the "rules" of combat but you won't obey the rules against name-calling on the forum... Ahh, someone admitting that he did NOT do the right thing at a time when he should have. Reminds me of Kerry admitting to Congress that he had gone along with torture, killing of innocents, burning of villages, cutting off ears, etc. and various war crimes in Vietnam. I guess when you come back and admit it, that makes it all better. Did Niemoeller feel better after he came clean about not helping those others when he could have, when the Nazis came to torture and kill them? Are you likening the allegedly tortured Al Qaeda terrorist network members to the communists, jews, unionists, catholics...? Really? These are the people we should speak up for, because if we don't, they won't be around when "They" come for us? Al Qaeda terrorists? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I disagree. I respect your posts for you are one of the more intelligent and unbiased posters in these forums but you are wrong here. The point is to win. Win at all costs. Do whatever it takes to ensure freedom. If that means breaking laws, stepping on the rights and liberties of our citizens...then so be it. Just win. Dude, you're losing your support base here. Starting with me. And often times, I agree with you, but definitely not here. Yes, the point is to win. Do whatever it takes to your enemy to win, but NOT "breaking laws, stepping on the rights and liberties of our citizens." Hell, no. There's no point in fighting to save your citizens' lives, if those lives will be lived under a government that sacrificed their liberty so that they might live. You're definitely the one who's wrong, here. Wait. You just said "fuck the freedoms, fuck the rights" but now you're saying that we have no idea how many times the rights are trampled by the military, NSA, CIA, FBI and DIA in order to maintain those rights... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Even when we "treat their people well," they kill our innocent non-combatants. Since we gain nothing from treating them well, I say we might as well get what information we can from the ones we capture. And if we're not willing to torture them (that actually doesn't sit well with me), then we should summarily execute them. No torture, just instant death. Who can argue with that? It is a war!... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And you are a republican and will not see any wrong in a republican president even if it is obvious to everybody else. Next time a U.S contractor is beheaded whine and post about how mean they are. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways (don´t republicans accuse liberals of doing that?) dude, if you are all for torture and the violation of human rights, so be it. But don´t complain when they do it to you. You are not having it both ways Torture of innocents or torture of those known to be Al Quaeda terrorists? I see a difference. Why don't you? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Even the Nazis gave the Red Cross access to their prison camps. But I'll bet not to the concentration camps, the death camps, or the places where people were used as living experiments, like, "How Much Salt Water Can a Human Drink?" "How Long Can a Human Live Submerged in Ice Water?" or "Can Dye Be Injected into the Eyes to Make Them Blue?" What exactly did the Red Cross do when it inspected Nazi prison camps? Give them the "Red Cross Prison Camp Seal of Approval"? "This prison camp is fair and humanitarian"? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, that's right, go ahead and make light of the fact that he's pointing out that by and large, people on your side of the political spectrum do indeed appear to have no qualms about giving sympathy and comfort and concern for those who make themselves our enemies. A little nervous laughter like you offer in response goes a long way in telling us how you feel, and what you take seriously and what you don't. I guess you don't take very seriously the fact that others observe that you sympathize with the torturers and murderers of innocents. So it would seem, anyway. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, and the only reason that Al Qaeda members continue to routinely torture and maim and kill innocent people is because for some reason they have never been exposed to or become aware of the shining beacon of "it's wrong to do that shit" even though civilized nations have refrained from it for a long time now. I mean, come on... what is the argument here? That the only reason they kill and torture is because WE have to show them that you're not supposed to?! That somehow, word has never reached them that it's WRONG?! They KNOW it's wrong. Seeing their adversaries NOT torture is not something that will ever stop THEM from torturing -- it will just be an indication to them that their adversaries are WEAK. They make a deliberate CHOICE to torture. It's not for lack of someone setting an example that it's a bad choice. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

T.S. baby! Ya wanna be a terrorist shitbag who plays by no rules, then it's only fair when "no rules" governs your prisoner treatment. I won't shed any tear vapor, much less an actual tear, for anything that happens to an Al Qaeda member. That would be asking me to care about someone who would torture and kill me if he had the opportunity, and then claim that he did it for god. Fuck 'em all. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"