peacefuljeffrey

No. You might simply find the person truly fascinating. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I liken what you said here to an "it can't happen here" attitude, which I think is dangerous and irresponsible. As soon as someone cries "racism" it is suddenly palatable to a lot of people to start infringing on all sorts of rights that we formerly enjoyed. Look at the "speech codes" that have infected many universities -- places that are supposed to be renowned for unfettered intellectual discourse! Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

So why then do some people want to trust healthcare to the government, when they can't even handle their own travel arrangements? Why would anyone want to put more power/money/decisions in the hands of people who are not hurt if they are wrong? (somebody has a sigline referencing that) Let's not forget or excuse the dishonesty of the individual government workers who benefited from this, what amounts to fraud. In the article I read, it said that gov't workers were reimbursed for tickets that were bought by the Pentagon in the first place -- meaning the gov't paid for the tickets and then "paid back" the workers as though they had laid-out the money. And there were workers who "mistakenly" traveled first class. How the fuck would you not realize that you should not be flying first-class? Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Bardot is convicted of insulting Muslims PARIS -- Brigitte Bardot was convicted Thursday of inciting racial hatred for portraying Muslims in a negative light in a book. The Paris court sayd the former film star compared them to "invaders, cruel and barbaric." Bardot and her publishing house, Editions du Rocher, were fined $6,050 each, to be paid to two antiracism groups that took them to court. She could have been sentenced to a year in jail. Bardot, 69, also an ardent animal rights campaigner, was not present for the verdict. In her book, Bardot denounced the "infiltration" of France by Islamic extremists and criticized the ritual slaughte of sheep during Muslim religious ceremonies. She also described what she called the "Islamization of France." ------------------------------------------- This is sickening. If any of you have doubts about where "hate crimes" legislation in the U.S. is headed, read this article again. We who oppose hate crimes legislation know that the end game is to criminalize thought, and to criminalize opinion, and to criminalize expression. It is already reality in other countries, so it's prety asinine to protest that this is not what could eventually happen in the U.S. Bardot is prohibited from expressing her opinion about Islamic extremism in her country, because she does not have he protection of our First Amendment in France. That's a pity. Because the rampant political correctness spreading around the world now keeps her from speaking her mind about Muslims. It speaks of the weakness of a particular group when rather than meeting someone's opinions and statements head-on and refuting them, the solution implemented instead is to silence the person under penalty of law. After all, if your position is strong, it can withstand criticism, no? If it is strong, it could even withstand lies and distortions, and the truth would eventually come out. Laws like France has here do not aid in reaching the truth of a matter; they silence discourse. Since when is saying what you think about some segment of the population a CRIME? Usually, that's what happens when a group's position is so weak that it fears criticism because the criticism will expose where it is wrong. And criminalization of opinionated speech happens were liberty is weakest and tyranny is strong. Places like Cuba, the former Soviet Union... and France, apparently. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It could be a smirk -- after all bubba and bride are "pullin' a good one" on Georgie here . . . This wasn't a momentary closing of the eyelids or an outtake in an unflattering moment. That bitch sat there like that for a long time. Maybe it's related to Nancy turning down bubba's offer to speak. Maybe it's just because the Clintons are assholes. Who knows? But whatever it is, it is surely despicable and disrespectful. At times like this, people should set aside their agendas for a minute or two. You must be kidding if you ever expected that from the Clintons. Those to are bordering on being fucking SOCIOPATHS. They are PATHOLOGICAL in their venom and in their lust for power. I hadn't seen or heard about this snoozing/smirking thing. You'd think that these sick fucks were unaware that cameras would be on them! Hillary's special level of hell will involve being smeared in feces while dogs with Rosie O'Donnell's face tear at her flesh. My heaven will be a ringside seat for the event. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I thought chances for that shit getting revived were dead and the expiration of the '94 ban was all but a certainty! How the hell did this happen, and what are the prospects for the ban being passed in one form or another. Someone better **** that fucking thing. (And I'm not saying whether I mean the ban or the banshee.) Blue skies, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If that were the case -- if criminals were modifying their techniques to preemptively shoot and kill those who might be armed -- we would have seen that kind of thing increase tremendously in recent years, given that 37 states now allow concealed carry of firearms for self defense. The fact is, this "preemptive strike" theory has not materialized... much like the liberal-predicted bloodbath over traffic altercations and parking spaces did not materialize once concealed carry got a foothold. Skyrad, why do you ask questions that taking a look at the reality around us could answer? CCW has been around since the late '80s. The premise suggested in Kennedy's picture is not new. Surely if what you're concerned about was going to manifest itself, it would have long before now. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah, but there'd be more BOOBIES!!! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And behold the power of cheese! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You are! You're free to hate whoever you like. Uh, wait a minute, that didn't sound right, but I think you get my drift. So, let's be clear, you can hate whoever you want to hate AND you can even tell other people who you hate and why you hate them. That right is protected by the First Amendment. Stand on a street corner and spew your hate if that's what you have to do. What you can NOT do, is act on the hate in a way that interferes with the rights and lives of other people. You can NOT incite a riot. You can NOT terrorize people. Yes, these last things you mention are ALREADY illegal to do, and we do not need to criminalize the thoughts you recognize as protected when they occur in conjunction with these ALREADY illegal acts. The illegal acts are prosecutable on their own. Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because when people at the UN screw up, the consequences are higher. Had it been doing its job, the second war in Iraq may not have occurred. Not a definite, but they certainly dropped the ball on enforcing sanctions and conducting effective inspections, and it may have been because of personal financial motivations. That sort of thing should be reported out if known, employee contracts be damned. As I'm sure you're aware, there is great disdain for the role of the UN by Americans. Acting unprofessionally and then trying to forbid any discussion of it certainly won't improve that impression. We'll always distrust it because it threatens our authority, but it's much worse when we view it as a corrupt largess of bureaucratic peaceniks who want to apply socialism on a world wide stage. I'm not even going to touch this one... but thank you for your response. The only reason I can think of why someone who disagreed with something (I assume you do) would "not touch it" is because he doesn't have an adequate response to it. Why else, if you don't agree, would you not unload your barrage and debunk it as worthless drivel? I mean, have at it. Let's hear why you disagree with that point of view, if indeed you do, as I suspect. Blue skies, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Extremely well-said. Blue skies, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Just like a U.N. employee to figure her opinion is worth TWENTY cents when we serfs are lucky to get TWO cents for ours... Blue skies, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I think that the consensus has been, lately, that America-hating liberals prefer a one-world-government-type scenario over American sovereignty -- which is why, for example, they support the U.N.'s efforts to ensnare nations like ours into "treaties" that ban individual ownership of firearms. Meanwhile, conservatives are repulsed by the U.N. sticking its nose into domestic issues. America-hating leftists (democrats) welcome the ceding of American sovereignty to "globalization" because they feel that the American government can do nothing right, and America has no right to look after its own interests among the nations of the world. Conservatives who still believe that America, for better or for worse, is entitled to self-determination, oppose the U.N.'s efforts to insinuate itself into our decisionmaking. That's why it's a partisan issue. The U.N. is as corrupt as any other governmental/political/economic organization, and it is naive to think it would ever be otherwise. The only thing is, the U.N. has this "cover" of being a multinational peace-force, when that's just a front for a power grabbing organization. Blue skies, -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This article mentions the guns they supposedly found. I just think it is odd that no anti-gun press has picked this up and run with it, because as we know, they are hot to ban .50 cals but there is of course a near zero-rate of their use in crime, so these idiots have hardly got a mandate. some story about the bulldozer rampage Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I just read a CNN article about the note he left about the whole thing. At this point, I feel more on his side than on the "law and order" side, because it's easy for me to believe that small-town crooked politics fucked him over. But my question is this: What ever became of the claims that he was shooting around with a .50 CAL weapon?! That was in the first article I read about it, and I haven't heard shit about it since. And you know that CNN, being as biased against guns as they are (remember the "assault weapon" destroying the cinderblocks?), that if they could demonize a .50 cal (with the recent calls to ban them as "sniper rifles"), they would. Anyone read anything about what weapons were actually found in this guy's possession? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Kind of difficult to swallow, given that their public persona is so specifically and predominantly anti-black. "Main target"? Really? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When you say "anti-christian group," do you have a specific group in mind? Domestic or foreign? 'Cause apart from those places in the world where there is christian/muslim strife, I am having a hard time thinking of "anti-christian groups" around here. Do you mean some sort of atheist mob terrorizing the god-fearing people? Like a bunch of scientists and academics who hate the religious so much that they go around killing them? Or was your example purely hypothetical? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The thing is, that wouldn't make you "the bad guy" any more than you'd become the bad guy if the criminal had a gun pointed at your wife's head, was about to pull the trigger, and you drew and shot him dead before he could. Once someone transgresses in a violent criminal manner, he has broken the "do no harm to others" tenet of our social contract. A person who responds to that transgression is no longer bound by the same rules that govern him if he were acting under "peacetime rules" of behavior. There is no absolute that says violent behavior is axiomatically wrong. Generally, it is if it is used preemptively, but violence is righteous if it is used in defense to save the innocent. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wow! That lets us off the hook for providing AIDS care to the indigent; to having police patrol the streets looking for rapists and murderers; to defending just about anybody in any manner! "We're all going to die, anyway, and probably within 70-100 years of now, so it's just a waste of effort to try to protect lives in the now!" Great logic, Tonto. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

One crime was based on hate, the other on revenge. So if I'm mugged by a guy who is 6'9" tall, and he gets acquitted, and I go out to another town and find a different guy who is 6'9" tall and beat the shit out of him, that's "revenge"? How the hell is it "revenge" to select a person who is NOT the one who wronged you and beat that person nearly to death? Your answers continue to be bullshit. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I certainly am not surprised to see you appear to defend the L.A. rioters, because they were "retaliating for centuries of wrongs committed against their people, and exacerbated by a black man being brutally beaten on camera by white cops." I guess that makes it alright. You're such a sensitive guy when it comes to the plight of gays and blacks, but when whites are victimized, it's okay as long as the perpetrators are those oppressed blacks. (Never mind that not a one of them was alive during slavery.) Oh, never mind also that the beating of Rodney King, as shown on t.v ad nauseum was an edited clip that neglected to show that he CHARGED the police in the (unseen) beginning of the video, or that he was high on drugs and acting irrationally. (It's pretty irrational to charge and try to fight a bunch of cops, too.) So we gradually come to know, more clearly, where you stand. If your people were "oppressed," that vindicates you if you decide to hurt innocent white people who had not one fucking thing to do with your oppression, and whose ancestors did not even own slaves. Keep it up, Keith. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yes. In the end, the guy is no more or less beaten up when the reason for the beating is one or the other. Some people will go out and beat, stomp, maybe kill other people and their motivation is simply to take their money. Should that be penalized less than when the motivation is to hurt someone for being black or gay (or straight or white)? Such people are just as dangerous, the more so because they are a threat to people of ALL colors -- I doubt most robbers care one way or another if they're preying on any given race. So that's a BIGGER threat to society, because the targeted victim group is ALL of society instead of at least being limited to a certain group. Yet no one is suggesting enhanced penalties or charges for these criminals. Strange. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You say I can not deny it and yet, I do, because simply murdering the person is not the only element to the crime. A hate crime isn't about victimizing an individual -- it's about victimizing an entire class of people. It's about a group of people trying to make the systematic victimization of that class of people the "normal" state of affairs. I have already posted links to show some horrific examples of hate crimes. If a person can look at those and still chooses to ignore the difference between a lynching and a murder, then perhaps the best term I can apply to that person is ignorant. I didn't look at the links to your horrific examples. I don't see how what you said amounts to the denial I asserted you cannot make: you still are saying that the hate crime is worse than just a plain old murder because of what the thinking behind it was. i.e. Thoughtcrime What would be wrong with coming up with a "really heinous murder" charge, that would be used when a murder got, well, really heinous? Like dragging to death, or leaving someone tied to a fence, etc. If murder is illegal, that's all that should be prosecuted about a so-called "hate crime," because we are not supposed to criminalize thought and opinion. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It absolutely is all about greed. People nowadays seem to feel entitled to having personal independent wealth handed to them, without having to work for any of it. If this compensation is about loss of the spouse's earning potential, what makes dying in a terrorist attack any different from losing one's insurance-salesman-husband to a heart attack or a skiing accident? No one rushes in and says, "Here's the $1.3 million he would have earned if he'd lived to the average life expectancy of a white American male." No, in most situations, when something fucked up happens to a family, they gotta simply get their shit together and make it work. If that means Mom goes and hits the employment lines, that's the breaks. If that means the kid goes to community college instead of Cornell, so be it. No one is ENTITLED to the money that so-and-so "would have earned" -- for one thing, because no one even knows if the guy would have lived X number of more years in the first place! What if we compensate some Wall St. widow $5.6 million for a husband who had advanced liver cancer and was destined to die in less than 2 years anyway? Had he NOT died in the attacks, he would have left her without his income, and she wouldn't have someone throwing millions at her. But he dies in the WTC, and now she's entitled to all the unrealized "potential" of his job, as though he were guaranteed to have continued to work, not getting killed, not getting fired, not running off with some floozy, for X number of years? It's ridiculous. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"