peacefuljeffrey

So you don't think the potential exists for large numbers of people to walk out of the theaters thinking/saying, "Gee, we'd better lean on our legislators to do something about global warming before it wrecks us in a way similar to (but perhaps on a lesser scale than) the way it did in the movie!" I think that a LOT of people are unduly influenced by movies that depict falsehood as fact. One huge example is the number of people I know who think that it's a bad idea to arm commercial pilots because an errant shot fired inside an airliner will cause the airframe to just disintegrate in flight. This is factually BUNK, and aerospace engineers have been consulted by AOPA, ALPA, etc. to testify about it. But still, movies made it a popular myth. And so people may oppose the armed pilots program for reasons that are not sound. Same could happen here. I'm not saying I believe or don't believe in global warming (apart from my belief that the earth goes through macroscopic changes and patterns that are far longer than we've been around as homo sapiens). I just think that people will be influenced by this movie. The issues notwithstanding, I'm looking forward to seeing the movie, personally, but I plan to screen out "conclusions" to make based on what is obv iously not presented as empirical fact. I have been grooving on the genre of "something disastrous happens and only a few of us are left." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeah, I think you're right. He usually exits a thread when he's been had. So you get a booby prize, I guess, for being wrong? If I were sensitive, I'd call your statement a personal attack. "Usually exits a thread when he's been had"? Talk about a wild, unfounded generalization. When I've been "had," I usually either admit I stand corrected (I'm certain I've used that very phrase on these forums before), or I clam up. What, you don't? In my defense I cite as evidence the fact that in many of the threads in which I take part, I post upwards of 5 or 10 times during the discussion's course. That's hardly "exiting a thread" when the adversity starts. If you're complaining that I don't get around to answering all of your petty points and questions, well, NO one here answers all of everyone's points and questions. For me, there isn't time. It takes a while to respond to all this crap. And yes, I cherry-pick the parts of the discussion that I actually want to pursue. And I have been in the position as you are of complaining that someone did not come near to addressing MY point or question. As far as my saying that craichead doesn't post like a "she"... You were out of line to apply your particular suspicion to what I meant. What you said came out of your OWN head, and was not contained either explicitly or implicitly in the text that I posted. What I was thinking when I wrote that was that it is far more common for the GUYS on this forum to "get into it" with others, especially on politically or ideologically-charged subjects. I found craichead to be disputatious, sarcastic, and confrontational in a way that I have rarely seen women on dropzone.com be. So it struck me at first, second, third glance that I was arguing with a male, given that I got no inkling from her username that she was a female. It had nothing at all to do with whether a woman has the intellectual capacity to debate with men. You were out of line to attach that allegation to what I said. There was no evidence of it -- it was a wild guess and a wrong one. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Don't go needlessly worrying yourself about me. If you are so convinced that this proposed law (i.e. of course it is not CURRENTLY keeping people from speaking their opinions) will not silence people's opinions, perhaps you can post the text of the bill for us? You know, so that we can be FACTUALLY assured that there is no language in the bill that would step on freedom of speech... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This statement would imply that you think women can't be intelligent and articulate. Dude, what the fuck do you know? "This statement" implies nothing of the sort. It is 100% VAGUE about what it "implies." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not insofar as it was already true. Posting it twice is just evidence that my Mac at work is a piece of shit. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I just find this kind of funny and wonder why you chose to mention it. Not meant to incite anything.

Ever think that maybe the crime rate is low _because_ they have more cops per capita? OMG that is fuckin' laughable. Cops' presence prevents crime?! Okayyyyy... Kinda like that guy with the miniature bat who got shot to death in Chicago after a Cubs game -- someone posted a thread about that a few weeks ago. Cops were right there on the scene, and still a murder happened. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well, here in the U.S. we're supposed to enjoy EQUAL protection under the law. There is no constitutional basis for extending "protected class" status to gays, blacks, asians, handicapped, etc. If they are a "protected class," that means I have LESS protection than they do if I don't belong to that class. If I have LESS, I don't have EQUAL. Therefore, the notion of "protected classes" is unconstitutional. And still they're getting away with this kind of bullsh*t. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, it's not about offensive expression. It's about homophobia. It's about a society deciding homophobia is no longer an accepted norm, and a subset of said society being pissed because they're losing followers. And no, I don't advocate legalized suppression of expression. I advocate people finding someone else to hate, if they must hate. I said this already, but I'll say it again, I'll take the article for what it is - Crap! It's propaganda from an ultra conservative web site. No more, no less. Propaganda or not -- IS the law actually proposed, and what are its chances for being passed. Doesn't matter what website had the article as long as this is real proposed legislation. What is this about finding someone else to hate? It seems you're saying that you don't want people hating homosexuals, but it's okay with you if they go and hate blacks, or asians, as long as it's "someone else"?! That's hardly a defensible position. But if you think that this legislation, which bans the speaking of views that "offend" homosexuals, will stop people from being homophobic, or hating homosexuals, you're fooling yourself. You can't legislate morality or personal views. All you'll do, I guess, is drive them underground, and probably spark some sort of hate-war against gays for the very reason that you silenced people's right to speak about the issue. It IS about offensive expression. If it weren't, the law would be proposed to punish ACTS of discrimination against gays, not WORDS against them. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Do you really believe being offended is the issue??? If so, you have completely missed the boat. Btw, that whole "you don't have the right to not be offended" bit is old. Find some new material. Why is it old? Because there is no effective counter for it and you want people to stop stymying you with it? Fact is, you don't have a counter for it. The Canadian law in the article is supposed to stop Canadian gays from being insulted and offended by the speech or writing of others. There is no defense for silencing people who want to speak against homosexuality -- that should be their right. If the only way that gays can win in the debate over their rights is to keep people from speaking their points against them[, then they've already lost. This is not about giving or taking away gay people's rights: it is simply a matter of eroding the right to speak freely (which again, apparently is not a right in Canada). Learn to separate the two. You can support gay rights without supporting a law that punishes people for publishing their views that homosexuality is "wrong." That has nothing to do with whether they can "come into your bedroom" and arrest you for consensual sex. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I do find that offensive. I think gay people are gay not by choice but by biology. So I don't think it should be held against them any more than being born blind should be held against a blind person -- surely no one chose their orientation. Short people did not choose to be short, etc. But please tell me what this has to do with going FAR OVER THE LINE to where you BAN people from SPEAKING THEIR MINDS about homosexuality! Surely it is not a good thing to do something like this even in the name of protecting the rights of homosexuals. Freedom of speech (which, as the article says, is apparently neither protected nor valued in Canada) is far more important than what they are protecting, here. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There are now at least several generations born into an era in which it is ILLEGAL to "beat down" blacks. That excuse is now just a cop-out. You succeed if you work hard and take success seriously. I myself make only about $25,000-30,000 a year. I'm white, college educated, from the suburbs, went to EXCELLENT schools, succeeded in school. My income, for one thing, is not the ultimate measure of my success in life, to me. For another, I am the reason I have not not "succeeded" financially more than I have. Shit, if I wanted to make $50,000 a year, I could do it. I might have to make changes I don't necessarily want to make, like go to school, or switch job types. But I don't blame anyone for my lame-o income but ME. I KNOW I could get off my ass for more money, and I don't DECIDE to. - So why are you complaining? Um, where did I complain about what? I did speak in condemnation of affirmative action, and of this crap about how unemployment numbers are only fair if the exact percentage of unemployed matches the exact percentage of that racial group in the overall population. I don't recall complaining that I was in any way being "beat down". - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Your posting of that article takes your argument nowhere. I never denied that the bank gives "interest" in the form of a rifle. I disputed the impression given by Moore in the film that a customer can walk in, sign up for a CD, and then leave with possession of a rifle. Let's look at the basic implication, which is that it's a bad thing for banks to give away rifles. Why? If a person were eligible to be given a rifle by the bank, legally, he would ALSO be eligible to purchase a bank at any regular gun store, so what's the difference?? If the customer wanted to shoot up the bank, or rob the bank, he is not dependent on getting the rifle given to him there in the bank; he could just buy a rifle at Walmart, along with ammunition (that the bank does not provide) and bring it to the bank. How about a different link?: Probably the Best Article on BFC, by Respected Author David Kopel From my link: - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Your posting of that article takes your argument nowhere. I never denied that the bank gives "interest" in the form of a rifle. I disputed the impression given by Moore in the film that a customer can walk in, sign up for a CD, and then leave with possession of a rifle. Let's look at the basic implication, which is that it's a bad thing for banks to give away rifles. Why? If a person were eligible to be given a rifle by the bank, legally, he would ALSO be eligible to purchase a bank at any regular gun store, so what's the difference?? If the customer wanted to shoot up the bank, or rob the bank, he is not dependent on getting the rifle given to him there in the bank; he could just buy a rifle at Walmart, along with ammunition (that the bank does not provide) and bring it to the bank. How about a different link?: Probably the Best Article on BFC, by Respected Author David Kopel From my link: - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You might as well say that the more criminal a person is the more likely they are to be black. Any person who is black and is not a criminal destroys your attempt to link causation there, just as any person who is highly educated but still conservative does. I wonder if the study controlled for the difference between definitions of "liberal." You know, 'cause the modern definition stands for high taxes, political correctness legislation, a disarmed and vulnerable citizenry, socialist programs, and oh, did I mention taxes taxes taxes? The "classic liberal" stands for government out of our lives as much as possible, individual rights, individual responsibility, and independent thought. Perhaps those saying they were "liberal" were just thinking of the latter and not the former. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There are now at least several generations born into an era in which it is ILLEGAL to "beat down" blacks. That excuse is now just a cop-out. You succeed if you work hard and take success seriously. I myself make only about $25,000-30,000 a year. I'm white, college educated, from the suburbs, went to EXCELLENT schools, succeeded in school. My income, for one thing, is not the ultimate measure of my success in life, to me. For another, I am the reason I have not not "succeeded" financially more than I have. Shit, if I wanted to make $50,000 a year, I could do it. I might have to make changes I don't necessarily want to make, like go to school, or switch job types. But I don't blame anyone for my lame-o income but ME. I KNOW I could get off my ass for more money, and I don't DECIDE to. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I have a knife drawer in my kitchen with 20 knives in it. Three of them are nice and sharp, and the other 17 are just not sharp enough to do the job, and they don't sharpen themselves. Should it surprise me or anyone else that the 17 dull knives don't get picked to do work? Why ever would someone think that, without regard for suitability and ability to do the job, I would pick each knife one time out of twenty? So although blacks may be 12% of the population, that does not mean that they should be 12% of everything, including 12% of incarcerated felons, 12% of murder victims, 12% of death penalty sentencees, 12% of the unemployed. Playboy Playmates are soooo often blonde. But blondes definitely are not a majority of the population. Why should they be the majority of the playmates? Just like your question, that one has a lot of answers. If all blacks and all whites were of objectively equal qualifications, I could see an argument that in an unbigoted society, their employment rates should equal approximately their proportion of the overall population. But not everyone is equal. If blacks don't typically have college degrees or vocational training on the order that whites do, then DUH, that could explain higher unemployment rates. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

From the article: I wonder; ifone hundred fifty thousand other gay people also read that ad in the paper, and each now complained, would Hugh Owens have to pay them $1500 each, too?? And holy fuck it's now illegal in Canada to write your fuckin' views to the newspaper?! I wonder if the newspaper that published Kempling's letter -- which makes very specific decisions about what letters to print or not print -- shares culpability for having run a letter that, were it not for them, would never have been seen by the public. Aren't the publishers guilty of complicity in this "crime"? I used to think that there were other parts of the world where you could live that were more or less just like the U.S.A. in terms of liberty and freedom, and now more and more I think we are on our own in terms of having our precious rights protected. To quote South Park, "This is some fucked-up shit right here." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, okay, and did you miss the part where the other article talked about the state of Texas, and yours singles out DALLAS -- ONE CITY? At any rate, does your article mention any contribution to the "overall crime rate" by those licensed to carry concealed weapons? No? I didn't think so. So even if your thesis is to show that in Dallas, CCW didn't lower the crime rate, NEITHER does it show that allowing citizens to carry firearms for their own defense contribute TO the crime rate. Thanks for playing. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oops. That part was written by crazyrock -- I mistakenly left the quoted material there at the bottom. I would never have said that, and from my past context, I'm surprised you didn't conclude that. So you can take back that part about how I'm so confused and inconsistent. Were it not for my inadvertent failure to clip that text, you'd still have no reason to suspect I had claimed to have both liked the movie, own the movie, and not have seen the movie to the end. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No one is asking any one to pay for their failures what people are asking for is an opportunity to fail succeed whatever but when Black folks job applications are mysteriously misplaced at an alarming rate We have to say what gives?? And how exactly did I lose my credibility I was trying to point out how the Slavery and institutionalized Racism still affect Black people today. Do you believe if you white (any race of people for that matter) people were systematically oppressed for 400 yrs. After 425 as a whole they would be on par with the rest of society Look, I've skipped posts, and don't even know if you're black, white, yellow, red or purple. What I do know is that if someone black or white applied for a job I was offering and couldn't even punctuate a sentence -- like you don't bother to do in you posts -- I wouldn't hire him, period. Basic schooling should have taught this skill. If a person gets out of school and can't write like an educated person, he isn't done; he needs to go back in. And I sure as hell don't want him representing my company in correspondence with my letterhead on it. (hypothetically) Now, I have come to believe, based on what I read all over the place (and in papers I typed in college for my fellow students, as well as stuff I read posted on the internet) that kids who come out of many modern schools either have not learned how to write and speak correctly, or have learned but don't bother to -- which in a practical sense is equivalently bad. Bill Cosby, in his recent comments, mentioned that blacks "can't speak English." He cited a couple of common, grammatically awful phrases. Some would call it "ebonics." Stuff like, "Why you ain't?" "Ain't got no," "What dat is?" et cetera. Is it any wonder that someone would be reluctant to hire a job candidate, or admit a college applicant, who speaks and writes this way? It is sub-standard. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Our team? So now it's us versus them? Racist much? Shit, let's just call for race wars right now. Right!? We're all supposed to be "just human beings," one big happy human family, UNTIL it's time to assess blame for one race's lot in life. My family came from Russia and Poland. None of my ancestors owned slaves. If I went around calling the white race "my team," I'd be branded as a racist, because I'd be rejecting blacks from the "team." But it's okay for Kallend to say it was "my team," i.e. WHITES, who "drew the foul" against blacks. And though we personally did nothing, we "benefited," and therefore must suffer now. So apparently it's okay to think of blacks and whites as separate teams when you want to blame the DESCENDENTS of long-dead whites for what they did to blacks. But if you're white, you're expected to treat blacks as though there ARE no "teams" -- as far as jobs, education, marriage... We're supposed to be "color-blind" until it's time to blame whitey for something. This is abject hypocrisy. Why hasn't anyone mentioned that in large part it was black African tribes who sold members of other black African tribes they conquered into slavery to the whites? So even blacks bear culpability for black slavery in the U.S. I guess they drew that foul too, Kallend? I guess the blacks of the U.S. today should have to make concessions and reparations, since some of their own ancestors sold some of their own ancestors? Where does it all end? Can't we move on from here?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, but I think that after this we should have a grasp on how level-headed and reasonable we should expect you to be on the subject. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Doesn't matter to me how many of MM's lawyers and "checkers" verified his "facts." "Facts" are not all that this is about. It's also about "impressions." Moore deliberately draws his audience into forming various impressions that come about only after deceptive manipulation and application of "facts." "Facts" and "statistics" are well-known to be easily manipulated; you and I could use the same exact facts and statistics (checked thrice or more), and make conclusion statements based on them that would be utterly at odds with each other, from the standpoint of final meaning. Our "facts" could be unchallengable; how they are used would be at issue. Moore walked out of the bank with a rifle, but customers do NOT do what he did as a general practice -- if at all. He claims in later interviews that they do, but offers no proof, no names, no dates - no reason to be believed. Still, he claims that's how it works, and that he and his people did not set up the bank/gun transaction ahead of time. Someone's lying. Either it's Moore, or the people who have researched this and put up websites saying that Moore's depiction of walking out of the bank with a rifle is aberrent. I suspect it is Moore lying. He didn't have to misrepresent a "fact" to do it, because he never comes out and states, "This bank will hand you a rifle when you open a CD," which would be false. Instead, he invites the viewer to conclude that his experience is typical because he never informs them otherwise. It is actually not unreasonable for people to take from this scene the notion that if they went to the bank they too would be given a rifle to walk out with, despite the fact that we know FACTUALLY that a person has to wait typically a week to 10 days for his gun. An absence of lawsuits proves exactly zero. I've never been ticketed for driving the wrong way down a one-way street. Does that prove I never have? Not everyone who could sue for slander does sue for slander. It's difficult to prove. I think that Charlton Heston could sue for being cast in a derogatory light, since it is documentable that his sentences were cut and slapped together in ways that altered the impression they originally gave. I think he is simply above even acknowledging Michael Moore. Heston, who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the civil rights era, is a slightly more dignified man than Michael Moore, who is just a shameless, intellectually bankrupt publicity hog. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

QuoteAnd if you really want to know (as if it really makes any difference), I have no firm opinion about gun legislation. If you have/want a gun and are legal to have it, you should be allowed to have it. I just hope that your anger never gets the best of you if/when you happen to have a loaded gun in your hands. And lastly...I'm a she. _Pm You don't post like a "she." As far as me getting angry while in possession of a gun, it's happened lots of times. I never did anything with the gun. It was as though I simply didn't even have it. I'm not that type of person. I'm armed just about all the time, if not with a gun then with a knife at the very least. But I am not the type of person that the public need worry about because (despite what you may believe based on the tone of some of my posts) I am not an unstable hothead. A burden is placed on a person who bears a lethal instrument. Legal, ethical and moral considerations exist, and serious soul-searching takes place, generally, in such a person, regarding when, whether, and why he would use his gun or other weapon. Such a person must be prepared to face ramifications if he should ever use his weapon (and that includes just brandishing it). I'm 11 years into it, now. I've never had to draw my weapon in defense, and certainly never in anger (that's just not a justifiable reason, period). Part of the reason is that I have self-limits in my mentality that prevent me from reacting violently. My gun is kept for defending my life, period. It is not a penis-extension; it is not a fashion accessory; it is not for intimidating others into giving me my way; it is not for settling arguments. It is a tool akin to a fire extinguisher: I hope that circumstances never demand its use, and I will go out of my way to avoid such circumstances; but if I need it, that need will be dire. "It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." Finally, regarding what you said about "if you have/want a gun and are legal to have it" -- that's tautological. You're saying that you're okay with people having guns as long as the guns they want are legal for them to own. That is hardly neutral, since there are constant efforts underway to make it ILLEGAL to own the very guns that we currently own legally. So if they made it illegal for me to have the gun I have today, according to what you wrote, you would no longer support me being able to have it, yes? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"