peacefuljeffrey

Glad to hear it. But on the first subject, I have read numerous articles lately (can't remember where, unfortunately) that were comparing Canadians to Americans, with the Americans looking quite unfavorable, and lots of explanations why Canadians were so lovable. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do you mean the part where the potential for Hussein to have gotten "fissile materials" on the black market from, say, the former Soviet Union, or other parties, was glossed right over? Yeah, I read that part. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

OOOH! A "U.N. watchdog agency"!! Let's ask them about the Food for Oil program, and who is now sitting on the billions of dollars embezzled from that fiasco. U.N. watchdogs are the same impotent jerkoffs who couldn't get Saddam Hussein to LET them ("Oh pweeze, pweeze, Mr. Hussein!") inspect for WMD during the 12 years of laughable "sanctions"! They have all the credibility of a street rat informant who's going away for 10-15 if he doesn't give somebody up. It wouldn't surprise me if the shit was disappearing while the inspectors were "keeping tabs" on it. If the U.N. is corrupt enough to steal the food-for-oil money, why not sell off expensive nuclear technology?? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I still don't see how that sets me apart any distance from the others. In fact, JohnRich (a person whose evident intellect has earned my respect) has avowed a distaste for an almost twin set of bad laws as I have. He's written against gun laws, drug laws, censorship laws... Is there really such a gulf between how much I articulate my distaste and how much the others do? And then we have the odd skydiver here who seems to be an ardent fan of statism. Go figure. Some of them are even longtime skydivers! I prefer not to get into politics. I don't believe that a lone voice of reason, like mine, would be anything but either lost, or destroyed, if I entered that fray. That, or since I'm "working poor," I just wouldn't fit in with rich fat cats and I'd be treated like that Brendan Fraser jewish character was in that movie about the prep school... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

He can't give it to anyone!!! You all said he doesn't have it Laugh Out fuckin' Loud!!!!! See? Liberals can't STAND to not have it both ways!! They can't help themselves! Now they're mad at the fact that the war has caused stuff they insist Hussein did not have to go missing!! Un-fuckin' real! To the liberals here: HOW do you explain this?? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well gee, forgive us if we learned a lesson from 1991 that that motherfuckin' psychopath Hussein just might order the IGNITION of the oil wells again like he did over a decade ago, fucking with the entire world through the toxification of the atmosphere and the wanton destruction of billions of gallons of oil resources. Yes, we should apologize to the fuckin' nations of the world for making sure that didn't happen a SECOND time... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um..*ahem* Seems to me that firing weapons into a sovereign nation is an act of war, and so even if we didn't put troops on the ground, we'd be "at war" with Iraq if we had done that, too. I am missing some leap you're making here: Why is it that going to war with Iraq is what is responsible for not knowing where the nuclear equipment has gone off to? If were were not at war with Iraq, we'd have even less presence in the area -- so how would that have given us a better handle on where his nuke stuff was? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I am confused. Why, among all of the people who are vociferous in their postings here in SC, would you single ME out in this regard, with this particular suggestion? Is it not also appropriate for, say, Ron, Phillykev, TheAnvil, Kallend...? I mean, what was the thinking behind this. I take it to be kinda sarcastic, and if so, then it really does apply to far more people here than just me. And if in earnest, then thanks for the compliment. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, I hope Bush will win, but I am selling some stocks just in case sKerry wins. Good idea, the artificially inflated stock market being propped up by temporary and unsustainable policies will most likely sink to normal levels when we have more sound fiscal policies in place that will provide for continued growth instead of an artificial high destined for a crash. Wait, I thought that the economy was supposedly in the toilet because of Bush... Now you're saying it's been doing artificially well?? Holy shit you really like to have it both ways, don'cha?! If the economy is running like shit, it's Bush's fault; if it's running high and hot, it's headed for a big crash and that too is Bush's fault. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A while back, a lot of people were saying "no, no, we should let the sanctions work for a while". Others were saying "the sanctions aren't working. Iraq is manipulating the UN like fools". Now we know. The people in charge of the program for the UN were not being manipulated, they were in on it. Maybe as punishment we should no longer let the U.N. give out the Nobel Peace Prize... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

For christ's sake, please click on the "get markup help" button and learn how to make links out of your URLs. I would have thought you'd have done that after the first time it was mentioned... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, it's just that people are always trying to convince us Americans that the world loves the sweet, innocent, non-violent Canadian species. In fact, none other than Michael Moore tried to tell us that not only do the Canadians have just as much gun ownership as we Americans do, they have lower crime because they're so much more civilized than we are... And then we go and hear about how a violent group like the Hell's Angels have "taken over" in Canada! It's funny to me too! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't see what this has to do with the content that is permitted to be shown on the television, whether it's over airwaves, or cable, or whether the local government has rules in addition to the federal ones. NEWSPAPERS also may not run issue/candidate ads per McCain-Feingold... and as far as I can tell, newspapers do not use the airwaves either. It seems your test "Does It Use the Airwaves, and If It Does, It's Subject To Regulation" doesn't work, when you realize the fact that even non-broadcast, non-public-cable/pole-using media are also being strangled by these rules. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If you asked me the square root of 324,768,237, and I guessed at it, that also doesn't mean my answer is wrong. But how likely is it to be right? The woman made a wild claim that we know she cannot prove, and she doesn't say who can prove it, either. Therefore it is irresponsible and wrong of her to make the assertion, since she has nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to back it up. Yes, it's possiible that in the future someone will prove what she asserted, but given that she is claiming proof before there is proof, that would mean her claims' correctness was just coincidental. Wait, are you saying "depopulation" in the sense of "forest clearing" of the people who live there, like "genocide"? Or are you talking about saving them from themselves and their rampant overbreeding, which is demonstrable fact? And what is this "as far as I have been able to research, the AIDS virus"? Have you actually researched the pathology of AIDS, or just gone looking for stuff on the internet that other people "researched"? I mean, you've apparently found stuff that has led you to believe that this woman is correct, that AIDS was brought about intentionally. Do you think, really, that given how huge that news would be, that the only reason it is not on CNN, NBC, and coming out of the mouth of the noble Dan Rather is that the people responsible for it exercise that much control over the media? By what means do they threaten or intimidate people who dedicate their lives to spreading the information they can find?! Please copy and paste some of what you claim is proof of how AIDS was concocted on purpose. I'd like to see whathas you so convinced. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, once again, let me repeat it slowly for you. They shouldn't air anything favorable or unfavorable to either candidate on public airwaves unless they are paid advertisements for which they provide equal time, or news stories. But the ACLU, AARP, AOPA, NRA... all of those groups are banned from "advertising" for their endorsed candidate within X period of an election -- courtesy of McCain Feingold -- equal time or not. They are not allowed to mention the candidate. And who decides what is "favorable or unfavorable"?! To me, telling me that Kerry supported extending the assault-weapons ban is extremely unfavorable, but to others, it's a reason to vote for him. And that's just one easy example. How the hell would you test "favorable versus unfavorable"?! No, that's crap. If the broadcaster has paid to have those airwave frequencies designated to that company, if you say that under those circumstances the government can step in and tell that broadcaster WHAT to broadcast or not broadcast, you are advocating fascist control of the media. Like I said, just because you own a car and drive it on a public highway, doesn't mean the government can dictate what route you drive, or where you go and visit. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Shit! We arrived there before the stewardess even got to me for my drink order! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It is, they own the tv station and they can play it in their studios all they want. They DO NOT own the airwaves. They are in the public domain and they are given permission to use them by the gov't. If that section of "the airwaves" is designated for a given company to broadcast on, then once they are cleared to use that frequency (i.e. it won't interfere with air traffic control or medical equipment, among other things) then it IS theirs to put their chosen content on. Your argument that they should "own" designated frequencies, but have to capitulate to content rules, is like saying you can own your own car but the government can tell you where you have to drive it. Ridiculous. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

...according to what? The Constitution? I don't see how the Constitution grants the federal government the power to control the airwaves, who broadcasts on them, or what they SAY over those airwaves. Could you bring this around to the justification for the government/FCC to regulate CONTENT, please? I'd sure like to see you manage to prove that! A made-up-on-the-spot claim that above all else, the airwaves must "serve the public trust" doesn't cut it. Not insofar as to disrupt other broadcasts or interfere with ATC, etc. as you mentioned. That has NOTHING to do with regulating content, or who says what. A privately owned station can be left alone to broadcastwhatever it wants and still serve your "public trust" by being forced to comply with the Emergency Broadcast System stuff, so that in times of crisis or disaster, they can be used to disseminate emergency information. NOT to say who can or should broadcast support for a given political candidate! Satellite and cable is another thing altogether, they have far more freedom to do what they want and I'd agree that if FOXNews wanted to air the program 24/7 until the election they'd be perfectly within their rights to do so. If such a network, on a cable system, wanted to air, say, ads by the National Rifle Association that say vote for Bush, or vote against Kerry, the McCain-Feingold atrocity makes that illegal, so no, only CERTAIN groups are allowed to air their views -- even when not using public airwaves. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes, and when I went to Hollywood Video on Saturday night, they had one entire section of wall space full of F911. Care to guess how many copies of the ANTI F911 movie they had? If you guessed "ONE SINGLE COPY," you win a prize. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think it's spelled, "S-O-R-R-Y A-S-S" -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Very well said. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You seem passionate about this, but not passionate enough to go to the effort to make these clickies? Come on, it's not hard. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When someone makes an accusation, the accused does not have to come up with "findings" to prove the falsity of the accusation. The accuser has to come up with "findings" (evidence) to support the accusation to the point where it is found to be fact. This woman has done no such thing. It's no better than people accusing Clinton of ordering Vince Foster's death and then saying, "Come on, prove he didn't!" That tactic is laughable, and beneath contempt. It's utterly specious. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Since when is it the purpose of schools to be unfair, just to show you and teach you to live with the fact that life can be unfair? There is no legitimacy to the idea that a school should fuck with you, just to get you ready to be fucked with in later life. Should schools plant drug evidence on students, because some cop may end up doing that to you at a traffic stop when you're 28, and they want you to be ready to handle it? I mean, where is the logic in your statement?? If anything, schools should be training you to FIGHT against arbitrary, nonsensical rules and encroachments on your freedom. In that, they are not just failing miserably, they are working deliberately against the cause. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I strongly disagree with the doctrine that schools should enact arbitrary rules whose purpose, as you state, is to do nothing more than indoctrinate children to obeying arbitrary rules. That's absurdism at its finest. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"