peacefuljeffrey

America Rocks!!! Here's to another year of Independence!

I'm wondering if I'm the only one. I enjoyed the story (won't mention spoilers here), but I have to say that the action was LAAAAME. My absolute favorite part of the movie was watching Dr. Octopus move around and strike. The way he would scale buildings with three mechanical arms while holding a person with the fourth was an incredible effect! But the fight sequences between him and Spiderman were horrible. The physical motion (a lot like the ridiculous-looking web-swinging that Spiderman does) was very "off" from realistic-looking physics. And when Spiderman shoots webs at objects coming at him, how does he reverse their direction by swinging the webs a certain way to make the objects hurl back toward the thrower? Look, when I gripe about this kind of thing in movies, people invariably say, "Oh, for cryin' out loud, it's a movie!" but there are some things that even in a science-fiction movie just defy the willing suspension of disbelief. (Spiderman stopping a subway train is one of them.) Anyone else have trouble with the motion effects and the physics of Spiderman II? Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So invading a country that poses no legitimate material threat to your country is a wrong thing and it is OK if other people invade you to stop it happening again? Well, my point really is that if the U.N. was enforcing its own rules rather than sitting back having those rules pissed on, looking like a bunch of fuckin' pussies, the U.S. would not have had to do what was right in their stead. While we're on the subject, could you tell me what you think of the rationale for the U.S. going to war against Iraq in 1991, the first time around? I mean, yes, we were part of a multinational whatchamacallit, and we had the blessing of the other nations involved... but does that make it right? I mean, even in that case, Saddam Hussein had not attacked the United States. So it seems to me that your whole basis for saying we're not right to have gone to war with Iraq is that other countries did not say we should -- NOT that we should not have attacked a country that did not attack us. At least, that's what I infer from everyone's statements that we should have waited for the U.N.'s okay before we fought Iraq. Well, the fact is, the U.N. is a pissant coward pussy organization and was never gonna take Iraq to task for violating the terms of Iraq's surrender. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Supporting war when it is righteous means one can't possibly have regard for human life? I guess we should never have bailed Europe's ass out in WWII then, since all war and all killing is bad, even if it would save lots of innocent lives. Will we Americans ever learn? You make a lot of comments about my maturity level, but do you stop to realize that your sarcastic responses put you at a level no higher? One would think that if you were so much more mature than I am, you'd remain above it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I guess all the articles I've read over the last, say, nine years have been utterly misleading, then. I'll look for the disproof of your statement later, but right now I'm headed out to play some disc golf. Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Whateverrrr That kind of comment reminds me of cops who would rather see crimes committed against people so that they can go after the perps than see no crimes committed and everyone's safe. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Thanks for posting a link that would actually work on a lame-o Mac at work!

That's hysterical. The only reason they were shooting at us is because we were trying to enforce no-fly zones over their country. Forget the resons why and just imagine some other country (or in this case group of countries) trying to enforce a no-fly zone over the U.S. -- Hell, I'D take a pot shot at them ever now and then too! Having lost a war, Iraq was subject to all kinds of terms of surrender, was it not? It's up to those terms to tell whether it is justifiable to enforce no-fly zones over the country. Why is that different from telling him what kinds of weapons he could have? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No. As I've posted before . . . see http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm and read all of the polls. Individual polls maybe somewhat biased, but if taken as a whole, I think you'll see that the majority of Americans think the war was a mistake. Individual polls may be somewhat biased, but put enough biased polls together and you get... accuracy? Amazing. I apparently have much to learn. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Okay, then. What does the U.N. use for ITS justification for passing and then not enforcing resolutions and sanctions on Iraq that Saddam Hussein basically pissed on, making the U.N. look like toothless, impotent idiots? How does the U.N. justify shirking its responsibility for keeping the defeated Hussein in line? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Who thinks that was even remotely possible under any scenario? The U.N. itself should be chastised for leaving it to US to put the teeth in ITS sanctions and resolutions on Iraq! We picked up the ball that THEY refused to handle. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The same U.N. that let Hussein flout its resolutions for twelve years? Come on. The U.N. is apparently about as potent and relevant today as liberals lately claim the Second Amendment is. On the basis of Hussein's contempt and disregard for the rules imposed on him following his defeat after invading Kuwait alone, the actions of the U.S. are justified. And no one ever said that people who are rescued from certain evil will understand and appreciate that fact immediately. Eventually, the Iraqi people will thank us, even if grudgingly. Yes. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Normally, I'd say something nice to you just to enjoy the knowledge that you shit yourself... But I just can't bring myself to do it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Spain, France, Uk, Scotland, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, etc... Please, do enlighten us and tell us of a particular freedom you have as an US citizen (legal or illegal) that we don´t have for living in an European country. Well, first of all, I remember being told that UK does not have a written Constitution anything like the U.S.'s -- certainly not one whose sole purpose is to delineate what powers the government has and to specifically prohibit it from usurping any more. Here: Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933. Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.) Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p. 27.) Hmmm... I wonder what would happen if they tried that shit here in the good ol' U.S.A. And I wonder what would happen if the government here tried to tell Jews, Muslims and Christians that they couldn't wear overt signs of their faith, like stars, head scarves or crucifixes. France has no problem with squashing religious freedom thus... Your claims that these countries have comparable constitutions is not supported yet. Are they online somewhere to which you could link us? Til then, as someone else said, "your claims are hearsay." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I was just thinking, "Boy, this place sure needs another thread started about seeing Fahrenheit 911!" Whew! Good thing you came along! - - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That might be noteworthy if it were NEWS. British cops have been carrying for well near a decade now. I have a newspaper clipping at home from Newsda (Long Island, NY) unfortunately it's undated, but it's from before I moved in '97, that says, "London Police to Wear Guns." In the article is a police chief quoted as saying, "We have to police the real world." Bear in mind, this was before the violent crime explosion that coincides with the ban on handguns that came about in 1997. (The clipping is probably from '95 or so, I think.) The police in Britain were even then realizing that shit was getting out of control, and the LONG DEAR tradition of the "unarmed bobby" had to be abandoned. According to stuff I've read, LOTS of British police carry guns now, OPENLY. And when I was there studying in 1992, some British students I lived with told me that lots of British cops carried CONCEALED, giving the impression that they were not armed, but that was only an illusion. So the idea that people don't need guns for defense in Britain is given lie to by the fact that apparently the cops don't feel that way. The British people like to delude themselves into thinking that their society is soooo polite that cops can effectively do their jobs without arms. It's a myth. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Cos is tha man! What other black leaders do black people have lately? Sharpton?? Jackson?? Those big sissies are the very core of the "blame everyone else for black people's problems" movement! Of course, those who want to have a cushy ride on the "we've been oppressed" guilt train will object strenuously to Cos telling blacks to take initiative and pride and make an effort to make your lot better. It threatens their status quo. It sure as hell threatens the popularity of demagogues like Sharpton and Jackson. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Reads like an encyclopedic list of the countries of the world that the British Empire (tm) has colonized, raped, and fucked over "royally" since the days of yore. So no wonder they drive on the wrong fucking side of the road. - Quote Here's the list, just so you can go look them up. Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Australia Bahamas Bangladesh Barbados Bermuda Bhutan Botswana Brunei Cayman Islands Christmas Island (Australia) Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia) Cook Islands Cyprus Dominica East Timor Falkland Islands Fiji Grenada Guernsey (Channel Islands) Guyana Hong Kong India Indonesia Ireland Isle of Man Jamaica Japan Jersey (Channel Islands) Kenya Kiribati Lesotho Macau Malawi Malaysia Maldives Malta Mauritius Montserrat Mozambique Namibia Nauru Nepal New Zealand Niue Norfolk Island (Australia) Pakistan Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Islands (Britain) Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Seychelles Singapore Solomon Islands South Africa Sri Lanka Suriname Swaziland Tanzania Thailand Tokelau (New Zealand) Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda United Kingdom Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (US) Zambia Zimbabwe -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Relax, you'll bust a gasket. The law is the law, and these people have had their voting rights restored, therefore, they should be allowed to vote. It's not a left or right issue, but simply one of illegal disenfranchisement. If you are allowed to vote, you should be able to. If you don't want ex felons to vote, then change the law that allows them to regain those rights. Fairly simple really. Since we haven't specified which people we are talking about yet, your statements are not intrinsically valid. Are we talking about ex felons, or are we talking about people who were mistakenly put on a list of felons prohibited from voting? Felons in Florida are NOT automatically given back their right to vote. They have to apply for it -- and I think that this is GOOD, because only those motivated to use their vote will bother, and those who can't be bothered to take part in elections won't get off there asses, and so we will be spared that many uninformed votes. Of course I am opposed to non-felons being mistakenly placed on the list of prohibited felons. That's part of why the board of elections sends out, in advance of the election, sample ballots and cards that show you are registered. If you don't get one, you ought to know there's a problem and you should check it out before you are told you can't vote. Voting is not just a right, it's a responsibility. I think that a lot of people take it too lightly, and expect that it will involve absolutely no work on their part. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Only twice, huh? When I was there, it never came near to happening... but then I wasn't advocating for myself, I was advocating for morons. Guess I should give up doing that. Oh, and the expense is the reason not to do it? I suppose that switching to the Euro is going to be cheap for them, huh? Reoutfitting and retooling mints, and whatnot? How many lives is switching to the Euro going to save? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

True, and the biggest JOKE in UN history. Countries like Cuba, China and Libya enjoyed good standing while the *U.S.* was removed!!! Oh, no mention that while Bush was president, the U.S. got put BACK ON the Human Rights Commission. What a farce it is that the country that sends more humanitarian aid around the world than any, like twelve others is chastised by such a farcical organization. What other country has a constitution that guarantees anywhere NEAR the freedoms ours does -- and even to people who are not in our country legally!!?! Nice try. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's not myth. In fact, I think JohnRich linked to it once. I've lost track. I think it was a study done by a European country, like Denmark or something. When you look around the world and see only two places where they drive on the left, yeah, it makes sense to me that things would be a lot easier in general if you'd give up the intransigence and just drive on the side everyone else does. Think about it: you'd have to see fewer traffic accidents and pedestrians run down, if all tourists to UK encountered cars coming from the left instead of the right as they cross streets; you'd have fewer cars turning and then entering the wrong lane to collide with oncoming traffic; car manufacturers could all be tooled the same way... Make a legitimate argument for keeping on driving on the left, please. I'd like to see what you brits think about it, and how you justify it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Now I'm preoccupied trying to think of who would make a good villain for the next movie. Electro? (it was always too hard to believe someone with that power would lose to Spiderman) Scorpion? (too much like Dr. Octopus in terms of fighting) Rhino? (same thing) Maybe instead it's time for a TEAM-UP! (Remember the Marvel Team-Ups?!) We need the Human Torch to join Spiderman to battle someone crazy badass! Hey, they've done it before... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"