peacefuljeffrey

My goodness, there really are people out there who will sling epithets childishly and still insist that they are part of rational political discourse, huh? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'll bet it's really easy to eat a balanced, varied, flavorful and interesting vegetarian diet when you're rich enough to hire a nutritionist, a personal trainer and a chef to do your cooking. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What happens if one of these people is spied in a fancy restaurant diggin' into Lobster Tails or a nice thick Prime Rib? Does PETA firebomb their house and blow up their family's cars? That'll teach those dirty turncoat carnivores! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I take that as a strongly racist comment and there are many others dotted throughout the text. It is true that in the beginning the author draws a distinction between terrorists and Muslims, but later the author either purposely or accidentally blurs that distinction. I took it differently. I understood him to mean the same thing throughout, but for expediency's sake he began to just say "the Muslims" instead of "the extremist faction of muslims who are terrorists." It was understood. He qualified it in the beginning so he wouldn't have to keep saying it through til the end. My subjective take is that the author is simply tired of being told that he is racist for addressing the fact that many of the terrorists (most of them) that we are combating today claim to be Muslim. He's tired of how we are forbidden from addressing this fact by political correctness, which claims speciously that we are trying to label all of Islam as terrorist. How much more of a disavowal of racism do you want beyond his statement that he knows most muslims are peaceful, but that that fact is irrelevant when dealing with the muslims who are terrorists? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm not crazy about it; I'm not crazy about christianity; I'm not crazy about skydivers getting together to be "hyphenated-skydivers" at all. Why can't we just be skydivers when we're skydiving? And outside of that, if you're going to be for or against a given candidate, why is there a need to be noting that you're also a skydiver? Christian Skydiving Association... I didn't know there was one -- if there is one. I do think that it's a very different thing from "Skydivers Against Bush" or whatever they wanted to call that abomination, because it's more likely to be just a bunch of people who feel an additional closeness through being both Christians and Skydivers -- NOT like they're going to go give some other group what-for! --- That's a big difference! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That was not venomous -- or you just don't know venom. I used no major expletives, made no insults -- I just stated my reasoning. You don't like it? I'm contributing to closed-mindedness? Was it I who suggested forming a club that implies "misinformation" is the exclusive domain of George W. Bush and the Republicans?! THAT is CLOSED-MINDED. -

You mean kinda like this forum? This forum lets us air our views and discuss them. It is very different from making a decision put a very specific set of ideals out there as "this is what Skydivers believe." So far, I have not heard of any major coalition of skydivers attempting to put skydivers as a group out there in the political arena -- and I feel that's a good thing. There are plenty of anti-Bush groups out there already, so there's no shortage of people to join if you want to align against him. What need is there to claim Skydivers (as though they're all of one mind) are, as a group, against him? Must one really tack on "I'm a skydiver" to his personal statement of opposition to Bush? Seems a bit ostentatious, to me. But this forum is very different from going out to the public as "Skydivers" who oppose Bush. And using the name "Skydivers Against Misinformation" implies that Misinformation and Bush are synonymous, to the exclusion of the idea that any misinformation ever comes from Kerry and the Democrats. That name also exposes the outright bias and lack of objectivity of the people who would unite under it. It's as disingenuous a name as "Americans for Gun Safety" is for a group of non-thinkers who simply want to ban guns. (I guess their premise is "of course a gun is safe if it doesn't exist.") - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Your moral code, as expressed in your "Skydivers Against Misinformation" thread, seems to be "If it came from Republicans, it's misinformation, and if it came from Democrats, it's Truth," and that's objectionable. It exposes your lack of objectivity. If you gave the impression of being for Truth no matter who it comes from, then more people would get behind you on it. But skydivers are bound to object to your co-opting and usurping the name of "skydivers" in your quest to destroy G. Bush because your use of the term "skydivers" implies that we are all unified behind this cause, and we certainly are NOT. And the recent implication I've seen made in the last few posts seems to attempt to be,"If you're anti-Bush, that means you're socially responsible and care about your fellow man. If you're not anti-Bush, by extension, you must not be those things." What a load of shit. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Maybe it's just scorn and irritation at someone who thought it would be a great idea to fragment skydivers along political lines, and open the floodgates to a whole lot more divisiveness. To be frank, I found the suggestion pretty much offensive. I withheld most of the venom I wanted to put into my original reply. I think that because of the fact that your initial impulse was to start a divisive group, it seemed to me to reflect much of what I see modern Democrats standing for these days: divisiveness, rancor, and spite. The kind of attitude of "if we're not the ones leading the country into prosperity and health, we don't want the country headed there at all." Of course, that's just my view, but I'm sure a lot of people share it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This idea seems to have been handled very well already by others. I'll just go on record that I am very against the idea. There is no need for skydivers/skydiving to attempt to align itself politically. I think it would be a very bad thing for people of any particular specific political persuasion to appropriate "skydiving" for their own ends, as though they own the concept in a proprietary sense. That would be taking things utterly in the wrong direction, and very soon afterwards you'd have "Skydivers Making Advances to Combat Kerry" (S.M.A.C.K.) and a hundred other groups, and skydivers would be factionalized and hating each other over bullshit. Shitcan this idea, please. It's the only thing right to do. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You are to be commended, Dave. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There's only one thing that bothers me about the idea of such stupid schmucks getting themselves hit by trains, and you nailed it: it traumatizes the railroad employees. It's not fair to them. But apart from that, I practically cheer when some fuckin' moron is so dumb that he can't stay out of the way of a train. People around here stop on the tracks in traffic all the time! (I make sure not to because I'm aware of the danger of not being able to move forward as a train bears down!) There is no excuse for that kind of stupidity. And I'm all for stupidity being removed from the population so that it can't endanger or hurt non-stupid people. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Aaaagain, the letter does not say we should wage war on muslims, you are just setting up and knocking down a strawman. The writer identifies that there are the majority (peaceful muslims) and the TERRORIST MUSLIM LEADERS who are PERVERTING islam for their own ends of obtaining power. His point is that it's MOOT that we observe that most of them are peaceful. We still must deal with the extremists in a realistic sense. And one does note that being muslim IS a consistent thing among the majority of the terrorist problem facing America. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That is a horribly inaccurate reading of the letter. I found that the writer specifically did NOT blame the entire muslim population -- he blamed the EXTREMISTS, and simply said that it does not help that the majority of muslims are peaceful since we still have to deal with the extremist terrorist ones. Please show us where you think he is blaming the entire muslim population. I believe you made an irresponsible accusation that is not backed up by the text. ...Soooo... since "it would not surprise" you, ahh, you'll just go ahead and believe that that's the case until some proof to the contrary comes along. I see. That's logical of you. Believe in the non-disprovables. "I don't know that this is NOT the case, so I'll believe it IS the case." Most regard this as a logical fallacy. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I noticed! I took your decision to comment on the pedigree of the letter as an indication that you didn't have anything to say to refute the points made in the letter, or you would have done so. I think it would be very odd if you had great things to say and huge points to score on the writer's thesis, that you shut right up about them and instead went off on the origins of the letter. In other words, your silence on the letter's actual points was very suspect. Whoa whoa whoa, HOW is it, again, that you're claiming to KNOW this letter is not authentic? And HOW is it that you're claiming to know it was written by several people? What proof do you have to back your assertion that it is not what it claims to be? How, for example, do you know that the first incarnations you read were not the result of someone having seen an annotated original and deciding, for expediency's sake, to forward it on minus the annotations?! The answer is: YOU DON'T know this. But that doesn't stop you from making unfounded assertions. Amazing how the most ardent defenders of Michael Moore still feel the need, lately, to admit that you have to consider the source (meant in cynical, we-know-he's-generally-full-of-shit fashion). It seems that no one these days is prepared to claim that Michael Moore is honest -- not even those who still believe his "message"! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

To all those who spurn profiling as unfair (or worse, ineffective, which it is most certainly not) -- why does the FBI use psychological profiling when trying to catch criminals of all sorts? One thing we know is that serial killers are most frequently white males. If we want to be fair, the next time we discover a serial killer is active in an area, we should round up equal numbers of whites, asians, blacks, hispanics... That'll be a wonderful use of resources. I mean, it's only fair to all the ethnic groups that no one of them should be under more suspicion than the others, even if the activity of which they're suspected is committed overwhelmingly by a particular group. Political correctness goes against every sound logical principle there is, and it ties the hands of agencies that are responsible for protecting us. Beyond that, it wastes our tax money by making the agencies jump through stupid pointless hoops. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah, they're the thinking-man's rock group. Always loved 'em for that. As far as The Manhattan Project, I think it does have some scornful words for people on all sides of the war issue. "The big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away. The hopeful depend on a world without end, whatever the hopeless may say." - I think this has to do with people's naivete; the hopeful, who cling to a fantasy that the world will never face dire threats that could end all life; the hopeless, who are fatalistic about it; the fools who think that "strategic arms limitation" can have an effect on the situation (i.e. so what if we reduce the number of missiles even a thousand fold if what's left can still render earth uninhabitable?) And the big shots who try to keep the whole thing under control. "Imagine a time, when it all began; in the dying days of the war, a weapon that would settle the score Whoever found it first would be sure to do their worst -- they always had before..." This is an obvious criticism of warmongers and an indictment of human nature. What I feel it neglects to consider is that one side, the NONAGGRESSORS in WWII, developed the Bomb first and foremost as a means of ending the most horrific conflict the world had yet seen. And we did not "do our worst" -- we bombed two cities; we did not go on a ruthless warpath with our new bomb, subjugating the WORLD, which we very well could have done. What would Moscow have been able to do if we built a slew of more bombs and leveled capitals all over the world? "Imagine a man, where it all began a scientist pacing the floor in each nation always eager to explore to build the best big stick, to turn the winning trick More than they bargained for." This is about Oppenheimer and the rest (even Einstein?) with a reference to Roosevelt's "Big Stick" thrown in for poetry. Yes, the world got more than it bargained for with the invention of the H bomb (and all the others to follow), but it was either that and a cold war or a lot of bloodshed through conventional means. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

As a reaction to the contents of the linked article, what does your response have to do with it? We already know that we DO concede certain "freedoms" when we board airliners. (I myself am pissed off that I can't bring a simple Spyderco or Swiss Army knife on board, since I carry one all day long normally.) But suspicious and possibly dangerous activity is suspicious and possibly dangerous activity. These men should have been accosted and their activities accounted for. This is not specifically or even necessarily at all to do with their ethnicity. If 14 white guys were doing the same stuff, I'd be (almost as) nervous, and justifiably so. What rights are you saying the author is advocating giving away? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I dunno... I rather think that there are plenty of liberals in this country who would welcome Jacques Chirac to come into the U.S. and "liberate" us from the "dictator" Bush. (Awful fortunate for us that the French are no good for that sort of thing!) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Christ. Is that the best you can do? He said that a full two years before he did raise taxes - he hardly could have predicted the future. The man was in office for a full four years and was a heavy hitter in Washington before that. Surely you can come up with something better than that. - Jim I think the point here is, "Don't fuckin' say stupid shit that you can't possibly know you won't have to go back on." Everyone knows the future's unpredictable, therefore you shouldn't make grandiose claims regarding what you'll be able to do or not do well into the future. Don't promise what you can't deliver. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I guess you choose not to listen to what the UN weapons inspectors were saying. They were saying that they couldn't find any WMD. But did GWB listen to them? No because he had his own agenda. Are you saying that there is NO CASE for the argument that Saddam Hussein was guilty of failing to abide by all kinds of U.N. resolutions that were imposed on Iraq? I don't know them specifically -- I just know that I've read over and over again that Saddam Hussein ignored U.N. resolutions for 12 years after he lost the war in 1991. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I am sorry for your losses and yes the world did become a more dangerous place after 9/11. But GWB has made it even more dangerous. He had no business going into Iraq. But he's there. You know, by george, you're right! It was the fuckin' U.N. that should have gone into Iraq. Where the fuck were they to enforce their own sanctions and resolutions?! Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Ah, the typical liberal "having it both ways." Doesn't "wanna" be accused of taking the last word, so he sets a land mine on the last word so that when I take it, I'm the bad guy. Soooo mature. As far as "wanna" is concerned, it was a deliberate use of the vernacular. Poetic license: deviation from fact, form, or rule, by an artist or writer, for the sake of the effect gained. Are you telling me that your use of "then" instead of "than" was deliberate, and an example of your taking poetic license? Riiiiight. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah, the arab world in the middle east (and elsewhere now) was not already fucked up. Thanks for being disingenuous, canuck. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

To say nothing of the America-bashing of "Beneath, Between and Behind." "Ten score years ago, defeat the kingly foe a wond'rous dream came into being Tame the trackless waste no virgin land left chaste all shining eyes, but never seeing Beneath the noble birth between the proudest words behind the beauty, cracks appear Once with heads held high they sang out to the sky why do their shadows bow in fear? Watch the cities rise another ship arrives earth's melting pot, and ever growing Fantastic dreams come true inventing something new the greatest minds, but never knowing (chorus) The guns replace the plow facades are tarnished now The principles have been betrayed Ooh, the dream's gone stale but still let hope prevail History's debt won't be repaid Beneath the noble birth between the proudest words behind the beauty cracks appear Once with heads held high they sang out to the sky why do their shadows bow in fear? I normally love Rush like no other band, but this song, admittedly, galls me to no end. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"