peacefuljeffrey

That's true. I think it's why people have FANTASIES. I think it's a decently kinky fun fantasy to do the "sex club" thing with "people having sex all over the place," (as in her deposition), but the reality may be far from the sexy image one has in one's head. Ya gotta realize that many of those people having sex all over the place in the club might be stinkygrossugly people! It's an easy trap to fall into, to give in to the fantasy that they all are beautiful magazine-model-gorgeous people. In reality, they're average folks, probably. Then there's the idea that although the image may be nice, there is the reality of all kinds of gross diseases, or of planting your naked ass down on someone's wet slippery spot ... Maybe Jeri is just a bit more realistic about this whole thing than Jack is... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Your came a full line after the "joke" about him being a "homo" -- and that line was edited on. That line was not associated with, and did not come at the same time as, the You could be a lot clearer in making your gay jokes more identifiable as jokes. As it is, they're not funny, because they fall into that category of "gay people would scream if straight people cracked the same joke." It's rather like when black people call each other "nigger." It's prone to making white people say, "Hey, what the fuck -- either it's a bad word or it's not!" - As a woman, some of your posts happen to offend me, Jefrey. Probably never would've pointed it out, but after seeing how critical you are of this type of stuff, I thought you should know. I think you're a nice guy having met you, but when you reply to Rosa who was posting seriously about her latin heritage and how she feels liberated by being a skydiver with a comment like "I'm glad you're a skydiver and I'm glad you're female. 'Nuff said. " ... it makes me wonder if you have any sensitivity at all. That is not the only post i've personally taken offense to, just the most recent.... usually i'll keep my mouth shut. jmo. Angela. If you're implying that my saying I'm glad she's a skydiver and that she's female was sexist, then I disagree. There's been a shitload more sexist comments made on this forum than that. Or is it taboo now -- "not PC" -- to make a comment that someone is glad that someone else is attractive? Do you take to task all the people who talk about "boobies" or who talk about watching a girls' ass while she packs? Maybe there's a good lesson here, and it is that what people write on a non-face-to-face forum like dropzone.com should not really be used to size up the worth of the people writing it. People who know me in person generally do not consider me "insensitive." I'm not perfect, and sometimes I engage in criticism and then get called hypocritical. That's the price I pay for not being perfect. Oh well. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Now it's your turn to be confusing: Who's "JP"? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Your came a full line after the "joke" about him being a "homo" -- and that line was edited on. That line was not associated with, and did not come at the same time as, the You could be a lot clearer in making your gay jokes more identifiable as jokes. As it is, they're not funny, because they fall into that category of "gay people would scream if straight people cracked the same joke." It's rather like when black people call each other "nigger." It's prone to making white people say, "Hey, what the fuck -- either it's a bad word or it's not!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because on the whole, our society is vacuous, ignorant, and easily entertained by the most base, rank behavior. We thrill to what is deplorable, and we extol the obnoxious. Watch any t.v. commercial, and you'll see people behaving badly toward each other, displaying lack of integrity, lack of compassion, lack of honesty. And the media make it seem "cute." (For example, the asshole guy who ate the last Lean Pocket, and when his wife asks about them, he pops the last of it into his mouth and then tells her he hasn't seen them. Or this selfish, "Get your own bag" thing where people are absolutely unwilling to share -- and this is depicted as good.) Faults are now virtues. Didn't you know? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So, what if a person's upbringing and experience in the world have actually led him to believe in earnest that his race IS superior, or that a given race IS inferior? What if he actually has been taught this, and actually is armed with facts and data that to him prove the thesis? What if the sum of his life's experience actually does seem, to him, to indicate his culture's superiority? I'm picturing a guy who comes to the U.S.A. from some unspecified country, where they are a homogenous people, ethnically, and he has been taught, as is the majority norm there, that people of a given other race are inferior. Is it not also arrogant and "racist" (bigoted is the term we should be using) for "society" here to judge him from the context of its own viewpoint and call his views unenlightened, undesirable, bad? Is it our place to judge cultures that require women to be subservient, to walk behind their men, to cover themselves in clothing so that no part but their eyes can be seen? To us, it's backward to live that way, so are we right to condemn them? No? Why, then, if someone's culture brought him up to view another race as inferior, are we entitled to use OUR race's, or OUR culture's standards with which to judge him? Doesn't seem as accepting as we are telling ourselves we'd like to be. It's that paradox of being intolerant of intolerant people. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You carry on as though there is some sensibility to differentiating between "the legislation itself" and its utter unenforcability. Would you mind explaining what the benefit is of having good legislation that cannot be enforced, or is not enforced? While you're at it, I'd love to read more about how "happy" you'd be if your concern for children resulted in your own death because you refused to acquire the means that would likely have aided you in preventing it. Is it supposed to be noble to die needlessly, as long as it's "for the children"? But really, my main fascination is with how you don't seem to care that the effectiveness of your gun legislation is a bad joke, but in spite of this you say you are "happy" with your gun legislation. That is such a novel paradox. I wonder what other expensive failed policies that rob you of what should be your rights but give you no benefits you enjoy having on the books... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You live in a country where all the legally owned firearms were confiscated from the people; the criminals who want guns get them on the black market; there are an estimated 4-5 million illegal guns in your country currently; your gun crime rate has gone up by double digits -- over 50% per year since your gun BAN was enacted; gang-related crime has skyrocketed; people are mugged and killed for their cellular phones... and yet you say that you are content with the current firearms legislation -- even though all it's done is get the guns that GOOD people might have used to defend themselves. One moment you're talking sensibly about having a gun since "everyone else does" and you want an equal shot; then you got and ignore the fact that in your country, a large and growing number of criminals do have guns, and that your current legislation -- with which you say you're satisfied -- prevents you from doing exactly that. I'm afraid I don't think that makes much sense. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why make that difficult, unlikely, or impossible, then, by keeping them at all times locked up and useless for that purpose? If everyone everywhere did that, you could add thousands more to the annual murder toll...victims who failed to be able to adequately defend themselves from violent intruders. A shame and a waste, when there's a perfectly good gun in the house that could be used for defense. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's a hell of a way to think. So you're saying, either way, we win. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

*guffaw* "Why would liberals support a liar who lies to further their agenda?!" Isn't that obvious? They don't see lies that further their own agenda as lies, they see them as justifiable means to their enlightened end. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Don't you know that Allah has already told them that anyone who isn't muslim isn't worth shit? Allah couldn't be wrong, right? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They have every right you do...including going door to door. You thinking it's "not right" is your opinion. Bottom line, they are legally allowed to do this...just like you and I. Personally, I have respect for a group allowing these guys to perform this important task. Too many narrow-minded people in this world want to never forgive people for mistakes they have made. You don't seem to draw any distinction between it being their right to have this job, and it not being a particularly good thing to have them in this job. I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone else is saying) that felons whose sentences have been served should be barred from this job, but I certainly think that there is no benefit to striving to get them employed this way. Just like a child rapist might be released from prison and have the "right" to any job he wants. Does that mean we should relish him going to work at a day-care center? Should we bar him from such employment? Debatable. Should we encourage him into such employment? NO. Why the hell would we?! There are lots of things that various segments of the population are legally entitled to do, but I would prefer they did not bother doing. I would go so far as to say I'm particularly glad when felons don't care to be involved in the political process and piss away their right to vote because they don't value it. I'd rather that anyone who has demonstrated a disregard for the law keep his views out of the public arena, and waste his right to affect who gets elected. I'm very happy when felons don't bother to vote. A felon wasting his vote is nothing to cry over, and certainly it is not worth spending valuable time working to remedy, when there are far more worthy social ills to address. It certainly does say a lot about someone when they take a vested interest in getting felons to vote. Let's not pretend that these Democrats are "getting out the felon vote" because they believe that once re-enfranchised, felons will vote a 50-50 split Democrat and Republican! No, they realize that felons are keen on putting soft-on-crime Democrats into power so that after their next arrest, they won't do as much time. The public should chastise Democrats for attempting to pour so much felonious criminal opinion into national election politics. The media certainly are not questioning the great mandate to bring as many felons as possible to the polls. No newspaper editorials I've read lately question the wisdom or the benefit of having those who've proven themselves untrustworthy and antisocial taking as large a role as they can in forming our government. As far as the legality of felons doing this door-to-door work, there are plenty of jobs that felons are not allowed to have. What would be so wrong with this job (dealing with sensitive information/dealing with people in their homes after being a rapist or burglar) being off-limits to convicted felons? Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The women are right to not want people who actually are MALE in their bathroom -- particularly because I have seen it asserted that transvestitism is not tantamount to homosexuality, i.e. you'd be allowing heterosexual males who happen to like to dress like females into the ladies' room. Not cool. But all that said, this is a stupid fuckin' issue and should not even be considered a problem that society needs to deal with. If you're a fuckin' transvestite, you should still be able to put that on fuckin' hold for a moment just to use the goddamned bathroom. And if you're a non-transvestite guy, you should be prosecuted for doing anything harmful to the male in women's clothing who rightfully tries to use the bathroom. The problem occurs when the transvestite is so convincingly attired as a woman that people will think an actual woman has gone into the men's room. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't see how any court can deny you access to information about YOU, especially when it is required by the government or agents of the government in order to exercise various rights and privileges to which you are entitled. I personally don't feel that birth parents should be entitled to remain secret from the children they put up for adoption. I believe that upon reaching 18 years of age, a child should have that information released to him or her. That should be part of the bargain of being able to hand your child over without being held accountable for its birth or its upkeep. But really, I don't see why a passport and all the other stuff is insufficient to get something as simple as the change of your birthdate done on your SS card. By the way, who the hell is this woman to now inform on you to the DMV? Why not renew your license and not mention this problem; then when you get the records you need, they can also be used to correct the date on the license if necessary? I wish you luck. It must be very frustrating to be stymied by incompetence that cannot be overcome and defeated just by pointing it out and stating what would be correct. I'm not into that feeling of powerlessness, so you have my sympathy. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I recommend a shooting spree, targeting all the shitwad bureaucrats whose incompetence and irrationality have needlessly and inexcusably complicated your life thus. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wow, there are days when I'd like to jump all women, too! Oh...wait... you said "with all women..." Never mind. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The Atheists are very much the small subset. If they want to unofficially add “under myself” to it, feel free. Every time you say that atheists can "feel free" to leave out mention of god when they say the pledge, you're claiming some sort of "ownership" of the pledge on behalf of religious people -- and that's wrong. God-believers do not own the pledge, nor do they own this country. By taking this stance, you make the pledge like a toilet seat: women want the seat left down, and (some) men argue it should be left up. Very few, it seems, appear willing to simply put the seat where they need it when they arrive to find it elsewhere. Why should it be always down so that women can sit on it? Why do they get to trump guys' need to have it up? Why should guys have to raise it when they enter, and lower it when they leave, and women never have to move it at all? Why would it be unfair for men to raise it from down, and then women lower it from up, each time they use the bathroom? Women would still make out slightly ahead of men, since there are some times when men actually use it down and leave it down, but there are no times when women use it up. To bring this back around to the pledge: why can't the pledge be left neutral (since it started out that way anyway!) and if people want to add "god," they can? Pajarito, why do you think it is fair to tell atheists they're out of luck where the pledge was concerned? What if that exact same attitude had been taken when the fact of the matter was the pledge did not have "under god" in it, and religious people were told, "Just add 'god' if you want to"? Since the original pledge didn't have "god" in it, it is YOU who should be out of luck, and who should have to buck the standard way of saying the pledge to ad-lib god into it, and deal with scowls from those who are saying it "right" -- which is what would happen if kids who didn't believe either sat out the pledge, or said a "modified" version. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Great....frustration to the point of personal attacks....I guess it's working. I'm not a moderator, but I don't see that as rising to the level of a "personal attack." It's an observation someone made about how he feels you're viewing this discussion and the facts surrounding it. It's not the same as if he'd said, "You're an ignoramus who has no clue about reality." Yes, that would be a personal attack, but that's not the way he said what he said. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Kind of like the Amendments to the Constitution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights already included at the time the Constitution was ratified? Technically they're not really amendments in the strictest sense, so much as they are afterthoughts and appendages but they were there in the Constitution as it was ratified by the states in 1789. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think that such "offense" would be misplaced, given two things: - he meant it totally sarcastically, to point out that he felt it was wrong for people to isolate themselves among a particular "group" based on superficial differences like skin color or gender, when we are all skydivers. - not all non-whites are "African-American" in the first place. His post did not say, "Whew, thank god I didn't have to jump with blacks today!" It simply (sarcastically, too) said he liked jumping with white people. It's not valid to conclude that he meant something offensive to blacks, since they are not the only non-whites. Should asians be offended by your post, since you discounted them by implying that only black non-whites should have reason to be offended by Mike's post? Do you see where this fucking bullshit about caring about color and ethnicity and gender gets us? We're squabbling about nonsense now. Why the fuck can't we just be skydivers, instead of being "women skydivers," or "'African-American' skydivers," or "white skydivers"?! If someone doesn't want to be discriminated against, he (she??) has to stop discriminating against others, otherwise their argument about the unfairness of discrimination kinda fails, right? Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Girl you need to come down to SE Florida, there are LOTS of latin skydivers here, many of them women. Oh boy... I was born in Peru into a very strict household...this is my personal situation that I am talking about. We latin women are not all alike, you know... Well, I'm with Mark -- with the loss of SoBe, we could use a pick-me-up down here, and one more hottie would be a good start! I'm glad you're a skydiver and I'm glad you're female. 'Nuff said. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well thank God the people that actually make those decisions don't agree with you. You are really out of touch, man. From the moronic statements you've made disparaging highly-trained commercial pilots to the implication that unarmed pilots can defend a plane better than armed ones, you've shown a bias that cannot be logically or rationally accounted for. But with the above statement, you put your ignorance on display. You see, the people who make the decisions DO agree with us, and there is a program already in motion to train and arm pilots. (It is being hampered by the asshole TSA higher-ups, but it is there.) Slowly but surely, though, with pressure from sensible pilots organizations, the NRA, and anyone else with a brain, pressure is being brought to bear to stop TSA's obstructionism regarding getting guns into the pilots' possession. So what was that again about the people who make the decisions not agreeing with us? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Actually, I think that if a hijacker took control of a commercial aircraft and caused it to "have" to be shot down, that would have tremendous shock value -- it would be the first time a military intentionally shot down a civilian plane, right? (I know there was KAL 007 years ago, but that was not supposedly intentional). Don't you think that there would be a HUGE disruption and shock to the public if a civilian commercial jetliner were shot down, with hundreds aboard killed? Right now, in everyone's mind, it's just hypothetical; the first time it happens, I think that will make millions of people decide against flying. We thought that the effect on airlines' business was bad when the four flights got hijacked on 9/11/01? It will be ten times worse once the first airliner is shot down. So as far as the terrorists' hopes of hijacking a plane and crashing it into a specific target, I think that the second part is superfluous: all they need do to really screw with us is cause a plane to have to be shot down. That'll be enough. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, I haven't done my Thursday night's sleep yet, but it technically is Friday. Cousin's getting hitched Wedding all the way up north I should have declined Must fly to New York prostrate self to TSA airline travel SUCKS Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"