peacefuljeffrey

They want to name it the Lost Liberty Inn or something like that. The guy's statement in the paper was that they want to make sure that those in government actually have to live under the same laws they force on the rest of us. This is one way to do it.

Do you say that to contrast the "rather messy political process WE have" with that of any other country's political process? Like the countries where political rivals are kidnapped, tortured, and murdered? Or just shot from a passing motorcycle? Or maybe Britain's Parliament, where "gentlemen" heckle and shout down and BOO speakers with whom they disagree? (I have never heard of that happening -- much less with regularity in the U.S. Congress.) Or how about in places like some Asian countries where I have seen news reports of BRAWLS breaking out on the legislature floor!? Just which countries are the ones that should be showing the U.S. how to behave? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You know, when I hear that people are engaging in criminal acts, it is not my first reaction to say, "What can I, or society, GIVE them to make them acquiesce to the law?" One should acquiesce to the law because that is what one does in a civilized society. The law, and those who enforce it, and those others who abide by it, should not have to kiss the ASSES of those who do not until they deign to grace us by doing so. So the idea of "GIVING" them better housing, education, etc. is ridiculous to me. You don't deal with people who act out and break the law by scrambling to see how much largesse you can lavish on them, and how you can spend everyone else's money to appease them out of hurting people. Who's "GIVING" me some entitlement to housing and education and employment and stuff, just to keep me from committing criminal acts? Funny, when I think of criminals, I surely DO think, "Let's have fewer of them." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That much goes without saying. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Certain offenses take on a new, and criminal, degree when worse things arise from them. Leaving a gun on the table? Not a crime. Leaving it on a table knowing a kid could get access to it, and a kid does get the gun and injures someone? Suddenly that's a serious crime. So yes, there could be a much more significant legal issue facing the parents if, through their negligence, more serious consequences arose. I wonder if your scenario could be such a case. I think it would. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I read that last night and I almost posted about it, myself!

I read recently in a newspaper article or something that a LOT of the European signatories to that pact are far, far behind on reducing their "greenhouse gas" emissions -- some of them are actually significantly UP since signing the agreement. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nah, you'd have chickened out and called me, JohnRich, or Pajarito to do the job. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is that, like, a gay allusion? Don't waste your time. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Actually, racial quotas have been illegal in the US since 1978. Tell that to college admissions boards. And tell that to places like Palm Beach County, which spends money and time to come up with "programs" whose goal is to "get more black kids into college." Why not just "get more KIDS into college"? If a kid doesn't want to go to college, and he's white, no one gives a shit. But if he's black, everyone's like, "What can we do to kiss his ass into a college classroom?" If he fuckin' doesn't want to go on his own, why should other people take on the responsibility for wanting him to go to college? And why is it okay that they drop any interest in having white kids go on to college. I'm sure there are parts of the country where even white college enrollment is low. Is there a racially-motivated drive to push up their college enrollments? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hahahahaha! Nice. You seem to feel that it's better to live in a state of being under the total control and scrutiny of the government at all times -- you know, for your safety. Which is the attitude of the loser? - It is very disturbing that I find myself in agreement with you more often this year. Just go with it. It'll feel quite pleasant before long.

So somehow, you assert, they are great at noticing things that demand strict attention to pick out, but they won't be scrutinizing my behavior? That's a bit paradoxical. Keep cheering it. Soon you won't have to sleep in a bedroom without it. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Not to those who have been successfully indoctrinated. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Congratulations! How does it feel to have a government demand more from you -- who DON'T use the resources nearly as much -- to cover for those who DO drain the resources heavily? I call that patently unfair, and in simple-minded terms over her we call it -- pejoratively -- "commie" or "socialist" or "ultra-leftist." And it sickens those of us who feel that people are treated unfairly if they are forced to carry the weight of others who won't do so. I'm glad you at least recognize and oppose it. Seems many people's senses are so screwed up, they defend such inequity to the death. Given that in most societies, the lower and middle income people FAR outnumber the upper income people (who pay a larger percentage of the income they work for in taxes), it seems virtually impossble for a popular vote to be able to rectify this deplorably unjust state of affairs. Whether this system continues to be employed should be a matter of right and wrong, not a matter of whether those slackers who are benefiting from it can out-vote those on whose backs the system is built. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hmmm... So then, are white folks unwelcome to watch BET? Seems to me that if the black community really feels it is a different sect of society, with isolationist and color-specific needs, maybe separate water fountains and bathrooms were the right idea... I mean, do they want SEPARATE, or do they want EQUAL; and do they want us TO make decisions based on their color, do they want us NOT TO make decisions based on their color. It really seems clear that they feel entitled to make decisions about themselves and white people based on color, but that white people may not do the same. They claim to be a minority. Sure they are -- in the population of the U.S. overall. But should they lose "minority" status (and privileges and protections) in places where they are the majority -- like New Orleans, D.C., etc.? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

There is NOTHING new about so-called "demonizing" teen drivers. How many decades has it been where teenagers are an "assigned risk" insurance category? That's because it's been long-known that they have more, and worse, accidents than seasoned adult drivers. Many other states do not let teens drive as yound as Florida does. Irv Slosberg, a FL state legislator, is trying to get the law changed because he feels (as do I) that 16 is far too young to be a licensed driver. Accident statistics bear him out, on this one. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

A very telling statement. Those who realize they are working their asses off to pay for those who won't -- they dislike the system. Those who are sitting on their asses with all their needs paid for by the first group -- they fuckin' LOVE it, and wouldn't want it changed. (read: they wouldn't want their free ticket rescinded) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Then please explain why you persist -- as many do, erroneously -- in referring to these services as "free." That's nonsensical. Is it maybe because people who don't pull much of their own economic weight in society get just as much of an entitlement to these services as those who work hard, and therefore pay a lot into the system? Is it quite fair, though? Essentially, a bunch of people are carrying a bunch of other people on their backs. What incentive is there for anyone to actually work? Their upkeep is being maintained by others who are willing to... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

When I'm dead, I'll have a long time in which to be calm. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I rarely see parents whose OWN NEGLIGENCE resulted in harm to their kids PUNISHED by the authorities. I think it's a cop-out. It sends a message that no one is really serious about deterring this kind of thing. If the parents were found to have let the unlicensed girl drive and she survived a crash unharmed, they'd charge the parents. So just because the kids died, they are not punished. I don't think I agree with that, as much as I may empathize with their loss. It may well turn out that their loss sprung from their own doing and the choices they made. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I have more of a problem with the idea that she was driving illegally -- no license, but someone let her have access to a car. Now, maybe she stole it, leaving without any express permission. But more likely, this was something she was known to do. Remember the kid in Florida here who was shot and killed by a cop in a schoolyard, because he was driving illegally (in a car his uncle had loaned him), and then sped off when accosted by the police officer? It can be said that he'd be alive if he had obeyed the law. His own actions precipitated his death. His uncle's complicity can also be said to have led to his death. Now, this girl, had she not been let to drive around with her siblings in this manner (weren't some of them ejected, indicating that they were not seat-belted? not sure if I read that in an article somewhere), might have just been somewhere else. Who knows what that might have meant: more would have been hurt, maybe killed in the school bus? Maybe a different car would have been smashed, with an old couple in it? No way to know. Someone's gonna be held to blame for this. That driver (and the company he works for) better hope he was not drunk, on drugs, or on the phone, or he's gonna be raked over the coals, and rightly so. And they're gonna eat it when the civil suit comes around. (Although a court would likely split the judgment and render the parents, the girl driver, and the truck driver partly at fault for reasons already mentioned). - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The fact that you are posting about this tragedy and in the same post wondering about the punishment the state should give the parents... "says a lot about your character." You're absolutely right. Something was very wrong there, for this situation to have even been able to unfold. I'd like to know why the truck driver never even braked for the stopped traffic. Maybe he's the one who should have burned to death, and not the kids. The kids, yes, that is a huge tragedy. Even if the 15-year-old made a dumb decision to drive knowing she was not even licensed (a criminal offense), the younger ones were never in a position to be responsible for their own lives, safety, or even activities such as going out for a drive. What could a 2-year-old have done to control his destiny in this case? It was all up to the parents or the 15-year-old. Sad to say, probably NOTHING will be done to these parents. I have seen too many cases where the authorities decline to charge them, saying, "This tragedy is punishment enough for them; they have to go the rest of their lives thinking about what happened as a result of their poor parenting." That's a cop-out, and it allows for others to make foolish decisions and also suffer no official consequences. And the cycle continues. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

SWEDISH [I]NYMPHOS!!!![/I][/B] - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

My tax money is not taken from my paycheck to buy them palaces. If people want to dig deep into their own pockets and see the movies and buy the merchandise that makes money for the celebrities, that's not something that affects me. You are confusing the matter: celebrities may be held in awe and esteem, but they are NOT "royalty." And I think that the lives of people who do nothing but fawn over celebrities and watch their every move are pathetic for that reason. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Again, thank you for pointing out the slimy underbelly that everyone pretends is not there. Are you quite sure "all health and education is free (or close to it)"? You did mention paying 70% income taxes... Isn't it more fair to say that you DO pay for it? It's just that the actual paying is done by the government, after it has confiscated the majority of the money you earned? I love it, I really love it, when people pretend that they get stuff "for free" from the government. They conveniently ignore the fact that they are taxed through the nose to give the government the money to buy the stuff that it gives them "for free." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"