peacefuljeffrey

Wooo-fuckin' HOOO, man! I'm with Ron on this one, and won't allow myself to be forced to vote for the dismal choice of either socialism or fascism. Come and make me vote, muthafucka! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, terrorists are all about pigs in a blanket, so that in case the pig the hot dog was made from happened to have been female, you aren't able to see it! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Almost as much of a waste of time as popping in to say that's a waste of time, and not even contributing a vote or opinion. I said Republican/Mustard, even though I'm not strictly a "Republican." I just tend to choose their candidates because they're less often anti-gun. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You give Wendy a huge hug and kiss for not bringing the Crosskeys tradition of a layer of Cheez Whiz under the Redi-Whip!!! Congrats. Eeeyugh! I'll remember to do that! I've heard about other traditions that include letting mayo and eggs and mustarnd and stuff rot for days before being used in a "pie." Thank god I don't jump wherever they do that. I'd have had to kick some butts! As it is, I had to shower off the runny whipped cream in showers that, well, because they're well-water, smell like rotten eggs... At least the smell doesn't linger once you dry off. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Aww, Jen, I'm sorry to hear about Layne's health problems. I know first-hand the sorrow of losing a precious sweet cat, so I know how you felt about Mai Lin, and I understand your worry about Layne. Hopefully, the vet will tell you that things will be okay, or can be made better. Sometimes it's just a fact of life that our pets can't stay with us forever, even though we and they wish they could. We have to take pleasure from the time we have, and when it's over, take pleasure from the time we had. In 2002 I lost my cat Storm. I had had her since she was given to me for Christmas in 1986! Almost 16 years old! When I moved out of my parents' house in '97, she began sleeping ON or near me nightly. Not a night went by when she did not appear on my bed within five minutes of me going to sleep. Often, I would wake up (either in the morning or sometimes late at night) with her lying square on my sternum, purring and kneading her paws. I loved it. I loved that closeness and companionship, and the texture of her smooth fur. She died in October '02, and I wasn't ready to get myself another cat until October '03! I picked up Feather from a local animal shelter, and while she doesn't replace everything about Storm, she's still a little mush-love and I'm crazy about her. It does not diminish how much I still love Storm, and I'll always have memories of Storm. The important thing is to do right by the cat, if she is suffering. Layne certainly is beautiful; I love the pic. I hope () that she gets better. If she does not, please don't despair. Let her have peace, let her feel your warm memories of her, and you can come to love another cat in time, when you're ready. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's not true! I've been waiting for years for someone to approach me about remedying my inadequate penis size! No, really, I love Spam the meat. I was in Walmart late one night (as is my habit), and saw the shelf with Spam. I thought, "This stuff has been around for ages; it's like an American icon; there has to be something to it; have I really lived until I've at least checked it out? So I did. When I got home,when I opened the can, the stuff was cold and moist and looked pretty gross, and I have no trouble telling you that I would not have eaten a single slice of it. BUT... FRY IT UP IN A SKILLET with some Pam (heh heh, Spam -n- Pam) until it's crispy, and you have yourself one tasty substitute for hard-to-manage, greasy-splattery bacon! I fry up thin slices of it unti they're crisp, then make a 3 egg omelet, and put diced tomato, diced green pepper, American/Cheddar cheeses, and the fried Spam, and it is OUT OF THIS WORLD DELICIOUS!! I think you all should try it.

Absolute fallacy. We have 250,000,000 guns, appx. in the U.S. (very nearly 1 per capita) If we had, say, only 1 percent of that, a tiny ONE PERCENT of that, we'd have 2.5 million guns. And yet even with 1/4 billion guns we have a TOTAL of 30,000 gun-related deaths per year (which total includes all suicides, criminal homicides, and justifiable homicides, and accidents). Would a tiny one percent of the current number of guns (which qualifies as FAR fewer guns, IMO) -- still amounting to 2.5 million of them -- be inadequate to have 30,000 deaths from guns?!? All you'd really need are enough guns in criminal hands to accomplish the same number of murders that go on right now. Let's say that you have 1/4 billion guns. You do something that causes there to be FAR fewer guns... say, only 100,000 of them. But all those guns are in the hands of criminals, who never registered them, who stole them, and the government doesn't know who has them or where. Those guns, even though they represent a tiny fraction of one percent of the original quarter billion, are not enough to be used in 5,000 murders a year? Besides, I mean, just how many "fewer" are you talking, if you're "not arguing for a ban"? Are you talking some absurd number of guns, like, say, 10,000? 100? 7? When do we reach the number that is "fewer" enough to cause an acceptably low number of deaths for you to be satisfied? My point is that making there be "fewer" guns around will do NOTHING unless "fewer" means "so few that they simply can't really even be found," -- and then you have a BAN. Yes, and why don't we stop even mentioning this, since it would be impossible to make it happen; since it has been impossible to make it happen even with an all-out ban, on an island nation like England? I mean, I might as well stand on the corner and hope that a bag of gold will fall from the sky and land at my feet rather than go out and get a job, if I want wealth. That's how realistic a fantasy the "zero guns" babble is. And since you don't like people getting killed by handguns, it is really so unreasonable of us to infer, by extension, that you would want guns gotten rid of? Everything you have advocated either implies a ban on handguns, or leads to one eventually. Same difference. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No I would not, but I did state that I am 6 times more likely to be killed by a gun that other sharp object - NSC stats. TK So you're saying that not a lot of people are running around with sharpened tire irons in your area? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You cannot validly claim to know that their intentions are not what they claim to be without having at least some claim of insight into what their true intentions actually are. So please, enlighten us: what are the true intentions of the NRA? And since it wouldn't help at all in places like Alaska, North Dakota, Utah... what would we do then if TASERs were all we had to deal with criminals? And would you ban the wearing of heavy coats in Florida, under the claim that they were simply worn to negate the utility of the TASERs of the law-abiding? Have you noticed that everything you say trips up everything else you say? I think that a lot of the rest of us have. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No. The "law-and-order" argument going on here is that it should not MATTER that he was moments before guilty of a heinous crime against her, because the law says you can kill only in direct defense, and not in retribution after the fact. So a judge taking into consideration whether the person she killed was not innocent at all is NOT how the system works. And yes, the fucker did deserve it. If you are not saying that, then you're saying that he didn't deserve it. WHAT? Are you saying that you literally forfeit your legal right to remain silent when you speak about it for money on t.v.? You can surely be charged even if you remain silent, but by keeping your mouth shut, you make it that much more difficult for them to prove the case against you without the help of your making self-incriminating statements. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

She was an idiot for speaking about this case with anyone but her attorney. That said, my question is, DOES she or does she NOT have a right to remain silent and refuse questioning by the police? I am under the impression that in the U.K., at least, Tony Blair has been attempting to DO AWAY with the right to remain silent. How are things in Australia in this regard? If I were a witness to this, I think I would say whatever I had to say to absolve the woman. I am glad she killed a sick fuck criminal shitbag. I think more people should do the same and so we could be rid of many more of them, then settle back down to life as usual. People who say, "Violence begets violence" don't consider the fact that when PEACEFUL people kill violent criminals, the peaceful people stop their violence when the evildoer is dead and gone. That's a huge difference. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That is, itself, a very problematic view. By definition, FACTS do not invite one to either "believe them or not." A fact, if it is true to the definition of "fact," is not OPEN to not being believed. A jury gets instructed by the judge as to what the FACTS that have been established in the trial are. They are not told that they can take them as fact or reject them as conjecture or open claims. You cannot allow a jury to "believe some facts more than others." CLAIMS made by adversarial lawyers, yes. CLAIMS made by defendants, like, "I'm telling you, I wasn't even there," yes. But FACTS, no. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You have it backward. You do not put a person on trial for murder in order TO have an investigation as to whether she committed murder or not. You have an investigation into the crime. If the police believe there is proof of murder taking place, THEN AFTER the investigation that has collected evidence of murder, you have a trial to weigh the facts. The trial is not the fact-finding investigation. The trial is where the judge and jury put together any and all facts that have been gathered BY the investigation. This supports PhillyKev's (why can't I read that name without getting hungry for a cheesesteak?!) assertion that putting a person on trial for murder is NOT a benign action that is just interested in getting the facts out. You put the person on trial for murder only when you already have so many facts that support a theory of murder that you believe you can prove it was committed, beyond a reasonable doubt. It troubles me that so many people do not understand the way the system is supposed to work, and then they are from whom the jury gets selected. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do you think maybe she might have legitimately believed he was still a threat because she was in shock and had brain damage as a direct result of his actions? If he actually was attempting to flee, it's not good that she shot him. But was she capable of making that determination or did she think she was still fighting for her life? How can you honestly say that you think she deserves to be charged with murder? Ahh... I see where you're going with this. HE brought on HER mindset, HER inability to decipher the fact that he was leaving and no longer threatening her, and through the injuries HE caused to her, she erred in her judgment and killed him -- therefore HE is responsible for his own death at her hands. I have to say, I like it. Had HE not beaten her senseless, she would have had the sense to let him flee, and not shoot him. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think that she should be working again with guns. Why? Because if what she did was wrong, there is no better way to have learned the lesson in your heart than to have made the actual mistake. She should technically now be more familiar with how to, and how not to, handle such a situation. More so than someone who has never been near that sort of event. If a person cuts a hook turn too low, augers in, and survives with only a couple of broken bones but can still return to skydiving, he has a more intimate knowledge of the dangers of low turns than someone who has only learned of them in theory. I think he would be a better skydiver than someone who's never had that close call. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, our unelected Emperor Michael Moore says we are... so we are. We have to be. He never lies. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Metal Storm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn!!! Anyone remember that awful 3D science fiction piece of junk? I saw it in '83 when it came out and I was visiting my brother at college. I guess I loved it then, but now?... My dad actually looked into investing in the parent company of Metal Storm... I thought that was funny. I remember reading about it about four years or so ago. The theoretical rate of fire was like ONE MILLION ROUND PER MINUTE. Each round was electrically fired from a tube containing however many rounds, end-to-end. No "semi-automatic" reloading of the chamber because the barrel is the chamber. They said that all of the rounds could be out of the barrel before recoil even occurs -- essentially I don't even know if recoil would occur because the rounds launch themselves like little rockets. I would not like to trust any gun with electronics in it -- period. And I don't think I like the idea of a military warship armed exclusively with such, because in the event of electronic warfare, what happens? Is there a .001% chance of ending up with a well-armed ship that can't fire? By the way, anyone have data on the comparative ballistics performance of 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm? I have an SKS in 7.62 and an H-BAR ("AR-15," really, just renamed for P.C. purposes) in 5.56. I thought I remember reading or hearing that 7.62 is not an accurate round or something. (Though I've never understood much about what makes the round itself guilty of being inaccurate...) Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What a cynical attempt at sleight of hand! By surreptitiously re-framing the debate into one of "deterrence," by sneaking "deterrence" in as the measure by which criminal punishment must be judged, they attempt now to discredit any sentence that doesn't serve that purpose?! That argument is itself invalid, specious, and disingenuous. This passage treats as a given that sentences are justified only when they are successful as deterrents -- and it even attaches "retribution" to the equation, although it is specifically the retribution (i.e. "vengeance") factor that people object to about the death penalty in the first place! This is about as intellectually honest as unilaterally reframing the gun control debate so that only those guns with "sporting purposes" are allowed. Does no one consider that sentences are supposed to be PUNISHMENT to the criminals? That prison should not simply be time spent in a place other than where you would voluntarily go if you were free to choose, but that it should be LOUSY TO BE THERE?! How about the fact that incarceration and/or execution is useful for protecting the whole of society from criminal predation? Have we really lost sight of the purpose of the penal system to the point where if it can't be shown to deter criminals, it shouldn't be used as a sentence? In that case, don't put thieves, rapists or murderers in jail at all, because despite the punishment of prison, they still apparently are undeterred. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Fuck that, I'm me behind the computer, in person, over the phone...even via telegraph. I'll bet you're a coward pussy in semaphore, though. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, I don't know the "in" information about what underlies this parody, but I do know that it is witty as hell. Nicely done. Great parody of the tone of the arguments here. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's because I like what Kerry has to say about homeland security. Instead of cutting funding to first responders like Bush did, he will increase it. He said he will harden targets such as nuclear and chemical facilities, and seaports. And he will increase scrutiny of visas. All of which makes him sound like a kid talking to Santa about what he wants for Christmas: "I want a pony and a race car and an airplane and a puppy and a mansion and a speedboat and a submarine and a..." I mean, this guy makes promises that he can't possibly keep, and people say they like what he's suggesting, as though it has any connection to the reality they're ever gonna get from him... Why are you allowing yourself to be suckered, dude? Are you new to hearing the promises of presidential candidates or something? Reminds me of the quip, "Yeah, and I promise not to cum in your mouth, too." No one ever means it. They say it to get you to acquiesce. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

correction - MOST of the GA airports are loose. It is sill yto say that we can even control it. Q: Aren't you the one who keeps saying we can and should try to control the 250,000,000 guns that are in private hands in the U.S.? There are only a few thousand airports in the country, and a few tens of thousands of pilots (or something like that) and you say we can't possibly control them? But we can control guns that could be made by any knowledgeable, competent machinist even if all the existing ones were to disappear somehow. Hmmm... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because I believe that health care and food should be fundamental rights. Guaranteed benefits, yes. "Fundamental rights"?! No way. You can't put health care and food on a level with the right to self defense, the right to freedom of worship and conscience, and the rights to speak and assemble freely. Why should we be the only species that feels a fundamental entitlement to food? Every member of every other species has to obtain food for itself, essentially. The lion that's too lazy to hunt? It dies. The human too lazy to work a job to get food? It should be on the public teat? No, thank you. How and where would we draw an objective line between those who don't have food or health care because they're not working to their ability to obtain them, and those who just can't possibly get it for themselves (the sick, maimed, disabled...)? What you want to get out of life is YOUR responsibility to obtain. If that is diamonds, cars, skydive gear -- or security and peace of mind in case you become injured or sick -- it is YOUR responsibility to avail yourself of them. But no way is health care on a level with our inalienable rights. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

C'mon dude, just one more shot The weekend was definately a good time all around. What are you talking about?! You were the one who couldn't believe I wanted to have more!! LOL! Couldn'ta done it without the salt and lemon though. And I have to remind myself to stop exhaling through my nose after the shots, 'cause that's when I smell/taste the stuff and that's something I don't like doing! Hey, thanks for the jumps, Mark. That first two-way was ACES!

Happy Birthday!!