peacefuljeffrey

I think it's fair to say that it is implied that I am making a request, here. All I'm asking for is the respect that anyone should be willing to give to honor the thread subject. I did not post: "Give us your thoughts on whether it's bad or good that people will soon be able to buy high capacity magazines again," so why should they want to come into this thread, whose purpose is to ask gun owners what they are interested in buying, when they could start an ANTI-gun thread of their OWN if they so desire? This thread is different from those that just throw out a subject for discussion and invite naysayers. I'm asking naysayers to leave this one alone. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't know what disposable income I'll have come September 13, when the "asault-weapons ban" expires, and all that "banned" stuff becomes legal to manufacture and sell and buy again, but I'm already workin' on a wish-list. I want an AR-10 (.308 cal) with all the doodads that my Match Target HBAR cannot have. I want a bunch of full-cap magazines for my Glock 27 (what do the 22s hold, fifteen or thirteen rounds?) and some of the very high cap 30-someodd rounders as well What do you plan to get that you can't legally get until the ban sunsets? And if you're anti-gun, keep outta this. I'm not looking for a thread hijack telling us why having this stuff is wrong or bad. Make your own thread if you wanna discuss that. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You can't compare WWII to with whats going on right now in Iraq. We were attacked in 1941 and shortly thereafter Germany declared war on us, Dec 11 1941. To say Germany was a threat only to European Jews, French, and English is BS to say the least. It doesn't matter -- the comparison was about what our soldiers did or did not sign up to do, and the fact remains that if they didn't sign up to protect Iraqi freedom, neither did they sign up to bail Europe out of the clutches of Hitler. Or do you folks want to claim that they did? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So now, asking whether someone is something is an accusation that they are that thing? Alright, as long as we're clear. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

WTF proof do I need?! "Proof" that I ASKED[/I] 'Wasn't he a pedophile?' " I ASKED if he was, because I could have sworn that I had heard that accusation slung around. Go do a Google search of "C.S. Lewis Pedophile" and a LOT of shit comes up -- I didn't have time to look at much of it, though. Another thing that came up is that he is said to be a huge "apologist for Christianity" -- is that why you are so eager to go to bat for him? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

LOL I don't think "Depraved Pedophile" is gonna be found in the jacket notes in his own book!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think it's because they're under the GREATLY MISTAKEN IMPRESSION that other women threaten their chances of getting a guy to have sex with them. They are unrealistic to themselves about just how easy it is to get a guy into bed, so they feel an unwarranted fear that other women present competition for guys and the possibility of being unable to find a sex partner. Nothing could be further from the truth, and you'd think they'd have learned that by now, but we all know that women are pretty irrational much of the time. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wasn't C.S. Lewis a pedophile?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'm just sick of hearing the fuckin' Dems pushing suppression of the First Amendment as a means of "campaign finance reform" even at the same time they're taking illegal fuckin' donations and trying to convince the country that it's strictly a Republican thing to have big money contribute to political campaigns. If they're gonna do the exact same things, they need to shut the fuck up about criticizing the Republicans for it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'll repeat what I started the thread with: "And this is the party that supposedly champions campaign finance reform to get the money out of politics?!" What kind of claim to legitimacy do the Democrats have to be the party of getting the money out of politics when it is shown, over and over, that they accept PLENTY of dirty money?! No, you're not defending the fundraising thing -- instead, you're trying to use a smokescreen by bringing up the irrelevant issue of Ryan's sexual misadventures and messy divorce. WTF do they have to do with the scumbaggery I pointed out the Democrats are up to financially? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Clinton sent U.S. troops to Bosnia and Somalia. Was the freedom of US citizens threatened then? Our soldiers signed up to defend the Constitution of the United States. They agreed to follow the orders of the Constitutionally authorized President of the United States of America. Therefore, if he orders them to other parts of the world, those are the orders. Our soldiers did not sign up in World War II to protect European Jews, or the French, or the English, or the Spanish, or anyone else threatened by Hitler. How does your standard apply in view of the fact that we DO send forces around the world to protect freedom, human rights, and political and economic stability? How can you say that our soldiers didn't sign up for protecting the freedom of Iraqis but not recognize that the same thing (but even worse) happened when they had to sacrifice their lives to save the freedom of Europeans? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Thats a politicians answer, and anyway no it isn't. He's basically taking the line that one should never negotiate with terrorists. I'm questioning if he really stands by that in all circumstances. You're saying that my emotional attachment to my family should guide me in deciding whether to give in to the demands of terrorists. You made it even "easier" by (for reasons I can't figure out) hypothesizing that the terrorists would be demanding only a DOLLAR. (What is up with that? Are you trying to say that in the real world, terrorists are asking for very very miniscule concessions??) Let's say the terrorists were demanding something much more reasonable to expect -- say, $1,000,000 for the return of my family. Of course I'd want my family back. But if I give in to terrorists who kidnap for extortion, who is to say that they will not then move on to another family, and another -- this is virtually GUARANTEED, if you show them that people will pay them to not harm them or their families. When governments deal with the problem of terrorists' demands, they have to look at it that way: if we give in to them this time, they'll know that we give in, period. And so the terrorists have found paydirt. They know the tactics they can use in the future. And the victims can expect them to be employed again. The only way to discourage the use of the terror tactics is to let the terrorists know that they will not get them what they want. This is elementary stuff, people. It's the same technique you use with your child when he resorts to a tantrum to get you to buy a toy. You have to suffer through the tantrum, NOT buy the toy, and eventually he will learn that tantrums don't make daddy cave in to his demands. It may mean that you suffer through a few tantrums, and you have to realize that and accept it. The lesson is not learned right away. And if you SPANK the child in addition to not giving in to the demands (akin to bombing or shooting the terrorists in combat), you will cause even more reluctance to use the tactics they've attempted to use before. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Your example is LUDICROUS. How does it possibly compare to the real-life scenario? It doesn't matter if you're talking about the Philippines or the U.S. You stacked your example to force us to consider ONE DOLLAR as equivalent value for our families' safety. The tradeoff in the REAL world, against terrorists, is not a paltry dollar! What relevance to the real situation does your silly example have?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wait, the Jack Ryan thing is about an extramarital affair, right? How does that compare, politically, to improper fundraising in the hundreds of thousands of dollars? All of it going to DEMOCRAT candidates? I mean, if you leave the marital woes in the bedroom like the Democrats screamed at us so shrilly that we should have with Clinton, the Ryan thing goes away and we STILL have this Kushner jerkoff doing illegal shenanigans with fundraising for Democrats. So no, the Democrats have lost the moral high ground, for sure, but the Ryan thing does not lose it for the Republicans, unless you have a commensurate illegal campaign donation scheme. Gee, I wonder if that power-mad scrunt Hillary gave back the money she shouldn't have received... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They aren't doing that - they are not putting any of their other citizens at risk. Besides, a government should look at the situation and make a judgement rather than blindly obeying that rule as you suggest. I didn't say "putting any of their citizens at risk." I'm talking about people in general. They are enablers to the terrorists. Their actions ("We'll withdraw our troops as appeasement in order to get our one person back alive.") tell the terrorists, "If you continue to do this (take hostages and threaten/and/or kill them), we will do as you say." Thus more hostages will be taken, and inevitably, more will be killed. For what? To save ONE life? Isn't it obvious that we all end up losing by appeasing terrorists? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Sigh. It seems Democrats and their supporters just can't stay on the straight and narrow. Maybe it's just that their values are all fucked up. Maybe it's just that they were dropped on their heads while they were babies. Either way, it's pathetic that they would ever try to claim moral high ground about anything. And this is the party that supposedly champions campaign finance reform to get the money out of politics?! Read about the scumbag here -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Or, from a different perspective: Seems like the life of one of their citizens has a higher value than the NUMEROUS lives that will now be threatened -- and ended -- by terrorists who see that, "Hey, taking hostages and threatening to behead them DOES get us what we want!" A government should NEVER put the life of one person ahead of the lives of many -- all liberal touchy-feeliness aside. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wow. I thought it was cynical and bitter and arrogant. And what was that about a pilot saying he was going to refuse to go-around on final for a skydiver on the runway? Sounds like great judgment to me. I dunno, the poster just doesn't sound like someone cheery to be around. My biggest peeve about skydiving is packing in the godawful Florida heat in a non-air-conditioned packing hangar. I love just about everything else!

It's just a jump to the left ... But it's the pelvic thru-u-u-st that really drives you insa-a-a-a-ane! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, I think he's calling them cowards because they're doing it at the behest of fucking kidnapping terrorists. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Loud? Yes. Didn't they give you earplugs to wear during the test? They did when I had one back in March. It was on my noggin, so I was only inserted up to the shoulders or so. I was fine with it -- I'm not at all claustrophobic, and I found the whole thing kinda soothing. I did start to drift off to sleep, and had a few little dreams that I didn't remember. When I was finished, the techs actually thanked me and said I was really one of the best they'd had at keeping still. Didn't want or need valium. What's this about "metal in eyes / welding history"? I think you should be fine. You can't get hurt by the test -- only freaked out. Just pretend you're in bondage, and your girlfriend stepped out to make herself a snack while you're tied to the bed! Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'd get to work on my instrument and commercial ratings. I'd try to find work -- even if I had to work cheap -- as a bush pilot somewhere. I think that'd be a fine life for me. Simple and full of beauty. But how much "change" are we talkin'? If it were like over $50,000, I'd do the above and throw in a rotary rating and a seaplane rating. I'd also buy a new custom rig in very Jeffrey-specfic colors and features (not that I'm at all dissatisfied with my rig now, but I would change the canopy colors to match the container). Oh, and I'd eat really really well, instead of just "well." Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I guess you're right. I re-read the article, and it's the FAMS playing the role of central idiot this time. Not that that lets the TSA off the hook for being a bunch of authoritarian stumblefucks, either. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't know if it's the same story, but I read one about some men who were like space travelers or something, maybe in a time warp, and came upon a world populated by only women, who used some sort of cloning and artificial embryo implantation, and they didn't need men, so I think they killed the men who arrived. Isn't that just like a woman? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

More like, "This text refers to the SEXIST edition." Since when are greed, aggression and promiscuity exclusive to men?! They're not even predominantly found in men. Do you have to go far to find women who are catty and vindictive to one another, or even to men? Do you have to go far to find a slut? Do you have to go far to find a woman who would kill for money? In today's paper, there's a woman charged with murdering her brother-in-law by making him a fruit smoothie drink with pineapple and coconut and anti-freeze. Her excuse? She wanted to only sicken him enough that she could take control of his money. No, it's MEN who are greedy, aggressive, promiscuous sick bastards. What kind of premise is this for a book? - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1402582196/ref=pd_sl_aw_alx-jeb-9-1_book_5109709_1/104-8343398-1409510 -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"