peacefuljeffrey

Gee, we'd ALL like to see the "real Democrats" when they let their asses hang out at that fundraiser... The funny thing is, they're jealously guarding footage of it, and won't let anyone have copies! I wonder why?! They insist there is nothing embarrassing on those tapes, nothing they should be ashamed of having taken part in. Ohhh, how I would love to see the conspiracy theories and criticisms fly if the Republicans pulled the same shit... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There's a difference between these instances. To "misbehave" at a boogie might be to act silly, get drunk, et cetera. It is not necessarily a degradation to have people see you act this way, and it is not two-faced to go into church the next day and behave yourself. You probably would not find video of someone being completely disrespectful of and disparaging toward others in a hateful and contemptuous way just because he's drunk at a boogie. It IS two-faced to act all pure and godly in church after being as misanthropic and hateful and vindictive as the Whoopi-crowd allegedly was at the fundraiser. (Funny, they're being suspiciously possessive and jealously guarding against the release of any tapes of that function. If it was really such innocent fun, and not utterly damaging to Kerry and his ilk, why be so secretive? Let us all see the respectable fun y'all were having at Bush's expense...) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Check the stats lately -- I believe it's now more like THIRTY SIX states (and one or two have undergone, or are undergoing, legal challenges to activation of the law). But the latter point -- it is true that some permit holders have gotten in trouble, specifically through the use of their weapon. In only one of the three cases that come to mind (in Florida), was the permit actually a factor: - Local gun rights activist James Settembre (search Google for story), apparently depressed over something, and prior to moving out of state, shot dead his dog, his wife and himself at their home. (Note, no permit required to have the gun in his home, so not a CCW issue per se.) - Local man in traffic altercation flashes gun on hip, claims, "I'm a police officer." He is not. He is a CCW permit holder, though. Now in trouble with the law. Probably will lose CCW permit. - Local man shoots, kills 16-year-old (6'2") prankster outside front door after midnight prank. Man had been victim of local vandals in months prior. Boy found to be unarmed, but man thought he saw weapon in hand. May have been object held by kid. I am making no judgments about these incidents, and I STRONGLY SUPPORT VERY LOOSELY-RESTRICTED CCW RIGHTS, but it is important for us to maintain credibility by not falsely claiming that CCW holders "never" get into gun-related trouble. IT IS TRUE THAT AS A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION, THE CCW-PERMIT-HOLDER DEMOGRAPHIC IS FAR LESS COMMONLY ARRESTED FOR ALL MANNER OF CRIMES. We ARE more law-abiding than the public at large. Out of millions of permits issued nationwide, a pittance have been revoked for gun- or violence-related issues. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

An interesting point about this: The officers are not sworn to uphold the laws of other states they may happen to enter (armed or not). They are not entitled or empowered to act as law enforcement officers outside of their jurisdiction, right? Nor are they empowered or expected to, while off duty and armed in another state, enforce federal laws. So why are they now entitled to carry concealed firearms in other states? Given what I said above is all true (and I think it is), then this is strictly about extending their right to personal protection. Because let's be honest, if they find themselves witnessing a carjacking or purse snatching in a different state, they are no more empowered to arrest the perpetrator than any other person in that state, CCW or not. The police in that jurisdiction are the proper personnel to handle such an incident, not some cop who is on vacation and has his Glock 27 in his fanny pack. So given that this is not about empowering police from one jurisdiction to act as police in a different one, I don't see why giving average citizens the same right to carry should bring with it the burden of meeting police officers training-for-training. There is nothing different between me carrying in Jacksonville, Florida and me carrying in southern Georgia except for a state line having been crossed -- so if I'm a trustworthy person in FL, worthy of the right to carry a firearm there, I should be worthy of it in other states as well. Paper distinctions are meaningless here. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Correct! But it's much easier when hunting down a bogeyman to blame, to take guns away from an innocent minority of people, then it is to blame an entrenched and powerful political interest. Then everyone can sit back and smile contentedly, while saying; "There! We did something about gun violence! Woohoo!" That smugness lasts only until the crime reports keep coming out, showing continuing increases in murder and gun crime. And that's where they are now. But of course, they'll never admit that the gun ban was a useless effort. Nope, that would be admitting a mistake. Instead, they'll just cry; "We didn't go far enough!" Then they'll move to ban all the single-shot firearms still allowed, air rifles, and replica guns. The nonsense from anti-gun folks just never ends. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Tolerance is all about condescensýon. You don't tolerate something you think is okay - you accept it. You have to think something is fundamentally fucked up in order to tolerate it, which is a rather sanctimonious standpoint. To reject something is a hell of a lot more honest than to tolerate ýt. Blue skies, Winsor Winsor, Mr. Few-and-far-between, much-missed"! Where ya been? Miss your gun posts! Um, here, I don't know if we quite agree. When it comes to people living other lifestyles, with which one might disagree, sometimes the best that can be hoped for is tolerance/i.e. condescension. Can people really fairly be expected to be "accepting" of all other lifestyles, even if according to what they have learned or been taught, or according to their feelings and moral sense, the other lifestyle is wrong? I don't think so. I think that it is enough to ask that someone just be willing to leave the others, with whom they disagree, alone (that condescending "tolerance"). Maye we should talk about whether it's okay or not to hold the view that something is fundamentally fucked up. I personally think that a lot of religious views are "fundamentally fucked up." But that doesn't mean that I can never like someone who is religious. When I meet a person who holds these kinds of "fucked up" views, I generally separate that part of them, mentally, from the rest of the parts which I do like. It means I tolerate it. I can never get myself to "accept" it, because that would mean seeing things their way, in which case I would then also hold their religious views. I'm talking about "tolerating" people for the parts that I will never be able to agree with them, which enables us to be civil, even friendly. "Acceptance," in my view, is too much to ask, and it's not fair to demand. Not everyone is going to concede the legitimacy of every single other point of view out there. Some points of view are going to be seen by some as silly, illegitimate, illogical, goofy, or just plain offensive or objectionable. Should everyone be forced to grant equal legitimacey (i.e. "acceptance" rather than just "tolerance") to every other way of life? I can think of a ton of examples that I think are hard to accept. Infanticide among the Spartans, or the Chinese (leaving weak infants or girl-children to die because they're not wanted); Chinese foot-binding; Arab subjugation of women; African genital mutilation (clitorectomies) of women... These are all things I guess I "tolerate" in other societies, and certainly they are not attributes for which I respect those societies, but I'm neither going to support them nor try to put a stop to them -- that is their business, i.e. "tolerance." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Okay okay! I admit, I was wrong. I guess I was thinking mostly of "among european countries." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's in the heat of the moment. If things are cooled down, say, a brief period during which shooting ceases, that ENDS the right of the authorities to just go in shooting and killing anyone they find. It's much the same as a civilian facing a lethal threat: if the attacker turns tail and runs, the threat is over and you are no longer justified in using lethal force. Cops are no more authorized to continue on with lethal force (as executioners, essentially) after a threat to them is over as the rest of us are. You're making it sound like they're allowed to continue trying to kill the suspects as some sort of "finishing a vendetta." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Boy did you set up a tautology here. You said, "If the cop says, 'Drop the gun or I'll shoot!' and shooting begins..." Um, isn't the crux of the question here did the COP shoot first or NOT?? I mean, it's true that a cop does not have to wait for a court to find that a perp shot first before the cop can return fire -- duh, that's impossible. But there should definitely be an expectation of an investigation into who did in fact shoot first. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, how in-depth do you plan your meals for the week? I've never been that organized, but perhaps I should start trying to be. Most of the time, I get to the supermarket and stand there without a list, wondering what I should get, and then I get one or two days worth of food and have to start all over again. And that's for the days when I do cook for myself. But tonight I hit the big time. I bought some skirt steaks, mixed italian shredded cheese, minced garlic and spinach. I butterflied the steak and rolled all that stuff up into it, and it's in the oven right this moment. (I hope it rocks, and doesn't suck!) I also put some jasmine rice in a rice cooker and that's already done. Mmm! That's my Saturday night. I'm in because I'm going to jump at Sebastian tomorrow morning. Yayy!

Well, it's less inhumane than putting the peanut butter on your genitals and calling the dog over. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I dunno... If he was a genuine "master" at it, I think it wouldn't be as transparent that he's lying. He attempts to distort the truth. The only people convinced by it, though, are those who are already prepared to believe anything liberal, leftist, socialist, or anti-Bush in the first place. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why not play a game? Make a list of all the things that you could have done with that $3 that would have been more satisfying or productive. Honestly, I assume that you mention the $3 in the sense you find it to be exorbitant, otherwise why mention the price at all. But you paid it. Why do you think they charge that much? Because people pay it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Especially one like a black lab, which I have never known to be anything but sweet and lovable, even to the point of being kinda dumb and doofy. Sucks that this one didn't end with, "The dog was taken to a vet for observation, and appears to be fully recovered, if a bit shaken." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Unless it involves guns. They're very consistently opposed to the 2nd Ammendment. One year, my friend and I swapped memberships: I bought him a year in the NRA (which, though a gun owner, he opposes because "they lobby") and he bought me a year in the ACLU (which, though a civil libertarian, I oppose because they conspicuously neglect the 2nd Amendment). The year up, they started sending me renewal forms. I wrote on one of the forms a short paragraph about how I would not renew until they came out in support of that single Amendment in the Bill of Rights that they have scorned. I wrote it right on the renewal form. Some time later the woman in charge of membership sent me an envelope with a few articles enclosed, and a letter, and a bit explaining the ACLU's "view" of the 2nd Amendment. It was an utter load of shit. One article she sent was a review of Michael Bellesiles' book "Arming America," which has been thoroughly trounced, shredded and debunked by numerous scholars, not least of which is a tribunal that included a Harvard scholar (or was it professor?) I read the tribunal's report in PDF online somewhere. It was LONG. So she cites a book which had already at that time been debunked, and a bit of other nonsense, and the ACLU's website and literature say that they bow to the "Collective Rights" model of the 2nd Amendment. (You know, the bullshit one that claims that "the people" means the state militia in that one of all of the Amendments!) The ACLU is far too leftist for a reasonable person to expect them to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. And their reasoning on the subject is so specious that it calls into question their conclusions on anything else they support or do not support (i.e. "if they can be so wrong about this...") - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You got any more of that shit you want to sell? It must be killer stuff. Sparky Actually, (amazingly?) I have never done drugs and don't do them now. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think your vote would then be: Superstition does not apply to my life *except* for in the sport. You may not think something specific will go wrong if you don't blow those kisses... but I'd bet you feel strange if you forget to? Well, I still think of it more as a "ritual," and I would not be surprised if some day I come to realize that I have been not doing it for a long while. Besides, I do it after I have a good canopy! Unless you're talking about landing problems, or problems on the next jump... If I forgot to, I'd probably just mentally do it on the ground, and will that to "make up for it." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Taking down gangs as they commit crimes is one thing. Social change that would possibly deter youth from entering gangs is another, and is not under the purview of the federal government. It's a real reach to suggest that it is. As far as I'm concerned, if gangs are able to be run through the prisons, then PRISON LIFE, not the world outside prison, is what the government must change. It is considered right and proper that prisoners lose all sorts of rights (and yes, they do retain certainones) when they go away, so under what premise are prisoners entitled to have enough contact with the outside world that they can run criminal enterprises? I say, DISentitle prisoners contact with outsiders with the exception of closely monitored visitation and correspondence, which should be limited to essentially telling loved ones, "I'm fine, I'm healthy, I'm alive, and I'm not being abused. See you when I'm released. I love you." Three hots and a cot, motherfucker. No t.v., no basketball, no law library so that you can fancy yourself a jailhouse lawyer and clutter the courts with bullshit meritless challenges to your conviction. Prison should be a place you'd fuckin' HATE to get sent back to, and HATE while you're there -- or else it ain't punishment. And Chris Rock doesn't like the electric chair. Why? That's electricity! My tax money. Stabbin' don't cost a damn thing! Get yourself a nice "stabbin' chair..." "Sit your ass down!... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why should he have had to do anything Didn't Clinton give us "100,000 new cops on the street," and midnight basketball?? Yeah, I know -- what a crock o' shit that was. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I definitely come to feel a deficit if I haven't had meat with a meal at least once in a day. I grant that this could be because on days when I don't have meat, I haven't carefully balanced my nutritional intake in a vegetarian sense to compensate. But more of this, I think, is due to missing the texture and consistency of meat, which -- I don't care how good a vegetarian cook you think you are -- you cannot substitute without using actual meat. I've had tofu chili which, while tasty, was not nearly as good as real chili (and I make kick-ass chili!). I completely agree with both of these statements. They mirror my feelings on the subject. When I was a kid and had my BB guns, I followed in my brother's footsteps (but who knows where he got it from) and used to really enjoy going out into the 3 acres of woods next door to my parents' house and hunting birds and squirrels. I can definitely understand (or could then) the primal gratification that comes from stalking and bringing down prey. But some time in junior high or so, I shot a mourning dove that was on a branch overhanging our pool patio. It fell to the concrete and flapped around, suffering and dying. I pumped several more shots into it, but for some reason it seemed to not die (I may have been reacting to reflexes, though). All I know is, I felt really really bad for having killed it, and I never did again after that. I also now feel a kinship with things that fly, as a pilot and skydiver, and even if I felt no remorse for taking innocent life, I still would not kill birds or flying mammals. I still feel bad about that dove! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, using this idiot's logic, no one should have the right to boycott anything, since they'd be boycotting something that someone else makes a living off. I can't imagine how this woman became convinced that it is wrong to simply decide not to spend your money to support someone or something you are ideologically against! Isn't that fundamentally the right of every individual? How is it required of me, or any association to which I might belong, to give my financial support to a movie theater?! How is it wrong if I associate with a group of people who, because we oppose something the theater is doing, use the power of withholding our wealth, in order to send a message to the theater owner or parent corporation? This kind of thing is done all the time, and it is not unethical or immoral, nor is it an infringement on anyone's rights. Businesses start up and go out of business all the time! If you open a Vietnames restaurant in the middle of a predominantly black neighborhood and it doesn't succeed because no one spends their money there, do you have a claim that the locals were wrong to not patronize you, because you you have a "right to make a living"? Ridiculous. And still people this dumb vote. That's scary to me. Can't say that I have an alternative idea that would not run counter to human rights, but I can't say either that I am comfortable knowing that millions of DUMB people are out there affecting the course of our country. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Here's the link to the letter I mentioned. Go see the views of an idiot as expressed in a letter to the newspaper. This is how stupid and ill-informed about "rights" some people are - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Although I do believe that we should have a right to privacy based on the fact that there is no power to invade the peoples' privacy granted to the government in the Constitution, I do agree that claiming a "constitutional right to privacy" is overstepping. I read a letter to a local paper today in which the writer lambastes those who would boycott a theater that is showing "Fahrenheit 9/11" because she likens doing so to "fascism," because it denies the theater owner and workers "the right to make a living." Apparently this person doesn't recognize people's right to withhold support for people or ideas that they don't agree with. What is the alternative to allowing people to use their freedom to NOT purchase something? To force them TO purchase something? I mean, if I don't want to see F-9/11 and I don't like the fact that it's being shown, this person is claiming that I'm wrong to boycott the theater because now the owner won't make any money off me! This is the theater owner's right?! It's amazing how frickin' stupid people can be!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Perfect. Let the special interests go into writing a law. Let disinterested persons adjudge it. Well said. You'd be surprised by how many people have no idea what "disinterested" means, or how to use it, or why to use it instead of "uninterested." Most people seem to think "disinterested" means you don't care. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why on earth would you ever think to make this about an issue of "style"? Are you saying people should choose their diet based on how "cool" it makes them seem? That's pretty pathetic. So why bring up some half-assed "competition" between vegans and omnivores? If it really came to that, I'd say there's more "style" in hunting out new animals, since unlike fruits and nuts, they can run away from your or even try to hurt you! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"