peacefuljeffrey

Perfunctory reply: "A what?" -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I'd eat the seeing eye dog. Those are like, a dime a dozen. A talking gorilla would be an amazing phenomenon, and too precious to simply eat. (Although...I hear that if you eat a gorilla you'll take on the gorilla's strength! ) I wonder if talking gorilla tastes like talking chicken... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I can hardly believe it, but during Conan O'Brien's show tonight they ran a commercial for CHIA-PETS! I remember them from, like, the '80s, but I had no idea they were still made! Have you ever had them, or known someone who did? Are you as surprised as I am that they are popular enough to still warrant television ads? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Congratulations! Glad you made it. Glad also that you found your stuff. Did you get the freebag/pilot chute back, too? They're right about the night aspect of it -- that must change things a bit! All the better way to prove you know how to get things done! I had my 1st cutaway with line twist in my "docile" Lotus 170, just six weeks ago! I had the luxury of daylight, though! Blue skies, -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Whow that's what I call a flip-flop! Are you really sure you know what you stand for? Are you for freedom of speech or not? Are you the same person who said and even better and on top of it all And finally I have nothing to add. You said it all. This concludes the thread for me. I don't agree that the things you quoted of me disprove my other statements. I stand by what I said regarding freedom of speech earlier. I also stand by the notion that sometimes speech is rightly curtailed in certain venues when it serves a compelling public governmental interest. When a person shows up at a private function with the intention of disrupting it, freedom of speech does not even enter the picture. Freedom of speech is not something that is constitutionally protected in a private sense. An employer telling you that you may not discuss religion on company time or even on company property during your lunch hour has not run afoul of the First Amendment. This is a settled issue. Your alternative is, if you don't like it, quit. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That statement is so completely fascist it's unreal. How do you think the American revolution began? It began because colonists protested and were set upon by British troops. Ever hear of the shot heard round the world? I am completely and willingly seeing the difference between shouting along with supporters and shouting dissent among a group of supporters. What you are willfully ignoring is the importance of protecting that dissentor's right to do that and how vital that is to freedom from oppression. To suggest that it is unwise, dangerous and stupid to dissent in that venue in no way indicates a support for abolishing the right to dissent. And a person who is prohibited from dissenting at a privately scheduled political rally is NOT denied his right to dissent. He can have his own rally; print his own fliers; wear his own sandwich board; send his own emails... The claim that this is the end of free speech and dissent is absurd. And about the Giants fan in Philadelphia... Is the city of Philadelphia a private enclave in which the proprietors have proprietary rights? No? Then people are free to wear what they want and say what they want, even if it is unpopular. It may get them beat up. Their expression is absolutely no justification for some idiot sports fan zealot to beat them up, but the reality is that it might happen. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that at a private rally, people do not have the right to engage in disruptive behavior. You also seem unwilling to acknowledge that even in some public venues, the police must take action to prevent a situation from escalating into a riot, and that the catalyst sometimes is some straggler opponent of the overall group who puts himself in harm's way acts as a spark among gas fumes. Don't you realize that some perfectly legal actions can be construed rightly as disorderly conduct if done in the wrong place at the wrong time? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That's the theory that I pretty much subscribe to... Pissed of my Fundie Baptist neighbor something fierce...He spent hours trying to convert me before I told him where he could shove his dogma. This reminds me of some Bill Hicks (of blessed memory) standup comedy I heard on itunes one time. He told the story of how some religious dudes accosted him after he lambasted Christianity in his comedy routine. They said, "We're angry about some of the things you said in your act." So he said, "Well forgive me." (He lightens it up by saying he ended up hanging from a tree by his underwear.) He has a MAJOR point. If you get a religious zealot so worked up that they get irate at you, point out to them that it is the heart of their faith to FORGIVE you, as god ordered that they should. That should set their thermostats to "melt-down." -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why not take advantage of the interchangeability of the magazines with the sub-compact 27 and the full-size 22? Both are .40, and you could use the full-size mags in the 27 should you need to use it as a backup...

I can't remember which one the 36 is, but I know that the original sub-compacts were the 26 and 27... Is that what you guys meant, or is the 36 another sub-compact? Dave, have you had to replace anything on your 17 with all those rounds? Are you still on the original barrel, striker, and extractor? If so, WOW. I've bought replacement parts as spares of the latter two, and I probably don't fire more than a few hundred rounds through my 27 in a year! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Heh, one day I'll take and post a picture of the keychain I'm talking about, the one I carry every day. Trust me, you would NOT want to be smacked in the face with this thing. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Oh yeah. That fully complies with thread's title. And it's all about PETA and stuff. Just my 2 Pfennige. 's gibt noch Millionen davon in D. What the hell does that have to do with anything? The thread has morphed from the original subject, and I am not the first nor the only one to be following the drift, so why single me out now? Your attention to this only as far as MY post is concerned makes it look pretty ridiculous. Nooo, threads can't drift; perish the thought! We've never seen that before. Give me a break. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude...think about that statement for a few minutes. Think about what? If behavior can be construed to be a risk of inciting a riot or something similar, the police certainly have the power to step in and bring it to a halt. That is their responsibility! And did you see in the story where people were SHOUTING FOUR MORE YEARS. So, what you seem to be saying is, it's ok to shout, as long as your shouting isn't the opposite of what other people are shouting. Exactly, depending on the venue. This was not a place where it was agreed that both sides were free to appear. It was a pro-Bush event. Shouting is not the issue -- DISRUPTING is. If I went to a Rush concert and everyone was singing aloud with the band, and some dude came in wearing a "Rush Sucks" shirt and yelling loudly about how much Rush sucks, etc., you can expect him to be bounced by concert security, and it being a private event, and his behavior being disruptive, they'd be right to do so. You are willfully not seeing the difference between shouting supportive things in a crowd of supporters, and shouting negative things among the same crowd of supporters. The former will not cause problems, and the latter will. These are the kinds of problems that can escalate into violence and chaos, and it is the responsibility of the secret service, the FBI, the event organizers' security, and the local police to prevent such events from unfolding. You are appearing desperate if you are trying to imply that only supportive expressions will be tolerated and allowed. Don't pretend that the right to protest against Bush has been done away with in this country -- at least not anywhere that is not a private pro-Bush function! Your claim is just so much ridiculous hyperbole not based in any fact. Kerry is not the president. Do you think that if 2,000 Kerry supporters were gathered to hear him speak, and two guys took off their jackets to reveal t-shirts that said, "Kerry is a horse-faced fascist leftist asshole" they would not be removed from the event??! Would that be the harbinger of the death of free speech that you seem to think it is when it's a Bush protestor ejected? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Wouldn't you say that the event can fairly be said to be for Bush supporters, and once someone makes it known they are there to oppose Bush, they are not welcome at the private event? Ejections for disruptors can and should happen as often as they occur, and there is nothing wrong with it. We are not talking about a public gathering of protestors for both sides. We are talking about a pro-Bush rally event, complete with an appearance by the president, right? Hardly the appropriate place to deliberately start a row among the attendees. If you're going to claim that protestors have just as much right to oppose someone at a private event, then I guess we could all just go right into the next PETA meeting and start chowing down on spare ribs in the middle of it, wearing furs? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I don't know if we've ever had the right to talk about bombs and stuff in an airport. That is far different from, say, publishing an editorial that says you wouldn't mind if someone bombed airports. Sure, that'd get you some attention from the FBI, but there's no law against stating you like the idea of people bombing airports. And saying so does not "aid" any people who DO bomb airports. The rule about talking about bombs in an airport is about talking about bombs while IN an airport. You can't do it, for security reasons. I suspect you were hoping "yes," so that you could launch into, "See, PJ, you don't have freedom of speech in the U.S.!" What's wrong with being willing to MODIFY your viewpoint if something demonstrates that part or all of it is misconceived? You say you'll defend your viewpoint to the death. Does that mean you won't change it in the face of contradictory evidence or proof?? Clearly the first and most famous one was that lady who shouted that Bush killed her son (you know, the son who volunteered for military service and was taught how to fight and kill with weapons). She was not arrested simply for having an anti-Bush t-shirt, and to suggest so is to lie. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Jeezum Crow, Bill! Can't you see where the very story you quoted said that the woman was SHOUTING ABOUT THE KILLING OF HER SON?! Might she not have been arrested for disturbing the peace? Do you think that if she'd been wearing a plain Walmart t-shirt she wouldn't have been just as arrested for doing what she did?! The "t-shirt-caused-the-arrest" claim is SPECIOUS. And the story you quoted gave you every reason to be expected to realize it. You are now substituting what you desire to be the reason for her arrest for the real reason. --------------------------- 'Peace' T-shirt gets man arrested Thursday, March 6, 2003 We certainly neeed more details about the claims made in this case. But the fact remains that a private business has a right to eject patrons if they do not accede to arbitrary standards. I've been thrown out of stores for being barefoot, despite the fact that there are NO laws or "health codes" that state I can't be barefoot in a store. I've got to like it or lump it, even though it's stupid, because those are the proprietors' rules... Once again, if this happened in a venue where display of such a shirt could have caused problems in the crowd, it becomes a "keeping-the-peace" issue. Obviously their intent was to stir up discord and trouble at a place where mostly the attendees were Bush supporters -- and the president was making an appearance. Do you think the authorities are foolish to attempt to prevent a riot in a crowd that appears before the president? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Why don't you recognize the validity of Kennedy's desire to find out what Billvon believes of you? Billvon was the person who made a supposition. Kennedy didn't want to know what you felt. He wanted to get an idea of what Billvon thought you felt. Two entirely different things. I'm sure that Kennedy knows he could ask you if he wished to. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

From Fox news.com: (emphasis theirs) Um, isn't that exactly the kind of rifle that gun-banners tell us we don't need or use to hunt game? Fox is saying here that it is a common hunting rifle, but when the banners go after it, they claim that it is NO use in hunting! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's a chick magnet -- they can have my "guy card" if they want it! LOL! Hey, it's a great song, and a great movie, and that line describes me soooo well!... What can I say? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The issue is, the gun-banner-types in society claim to believe that through gun bans, they will control society to make it unable to use guns to commit these types of crimes. The problem is, when the evidence makes quite clear that their efforts, which restrict the rights of good people, don't have any effect as far as controlling the bad people, they are not willing to wipe the slate clean, end the restrictions that are affecting the good people, and try something else. They are unwilling to acknowledge the failure of their efforts. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

They are what they are, commensurate with the current situation regarding our social reality, which includes everything from the mindset of the average citizen, the mindset of the average criminal, gun ownership and who engages in it, etc. The killings are regrettable, but do not push me to the point where I think guns should be banned/confiscated/destroyed... Because I fully realize that efforts made to do that will fail utterly to keep the bad people from having and using them. So we are left having to accept criminal use of guns in order to keep the good people able to be free enough to have theirs, and there is no disputing that good people with guns save lives. I am going to be thankful this Thursday (as I am every day, actually) that we did not elect the man who would have been certain to turn this event into an excuse to push more restrictive gun laws -- and BANS. The only reason liberals have left hunting rifles (soon to be called "high-powered sniper rifles" (and god forbid if they're semi-auto!) alone, is the fact that they realize they could never restrict every class of firearms at once. They have to feign "protection" for certain classes just to be able to go after class X, Y or Z at any given time. Only once they had clamps down on those would they start to turn toward hunting rifles. They always grant that the exemption to gun restrictions is "sporting use," as though we don't have a right to guns for personal defense, which is not nearly as important as the right to hunt . This is what has led to our rallying call, "The Second Amendment is not about hunting!" I am very glad that we won't have a John Kerry in the White House to rubber stamp an idiotic knee-jerk restriction due to this event. If we were in England, this would be the kind of seminal, fluke event that would be the trigger for a ban on guns. Their singular spike event in Dunblane (one guy committing one crime and killing a bunch of people) so skewed their thinking that it was enough to ban EVERYONE from having guns. That's irrational. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, this is DZ.com, about as far from the real world as you can get. My classroom is in the real world, on the south side of Chicago, about a mile from places the police won't go alone and paramedics won't go without a police escort. A place I have worked since before you were born. Don't lecture me about the real world. So... your classroom is then not in the places the police won't go -- so what relevance do those places have in this discussion? You said you're a mile from the places police won't go. Are you sure you don't really want to talk about the actual places the police won't go? Hey, I live in a place that the police will go to. Does that make it not the real world, where I live? Does "the real world" simply mean, "anyplace that is crappy and dangerous?" Anyone who doesn't live in a crappy, dangerous place where the police won't go, or where genocide, starvation and disease are not cutting huge swaths through the population is a spoiled brat who doesn't live in "the real world"? Maybe the real world is where things are going OKAY, and the places where things are as fucked up as you're talking about are the non-real world. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I agree, and drivers' licenses should be much harder to obtain. You think that driving deaths would decline just because we made driver's licenses harder to obtain?! How would that affect the number of people killed or injured by those who drive without licenses? Driving deaths are not caused necessarily by people who lack driving skills -- they're caused by people being careless or stupid or reckless. This has nothing to do with inadequate training or skill. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because righteousness (anti-Naziism) has not truly triumphed over wickedness (for lack of a better term) if it simply squelches the voice of wickedness. For a victory over the Nazi way of thinking to be complete and true, it has to be -- HAS to be -- because Naziism and anti-Naziism "had it out" with their views in a public forum, and one trounced the other. How complete a victory would it be to convict someone of a crime if he was never allowed to mount a defense or speak or examine witnesses on his own behalf? That would be a hollow conviction. Likewise it is a hollow "victory" over Naziism to proclaim it vanquished just because you keep it suppressed. Far better to let it fail on its own lack of merit than to deny the world the opportunity to SEE that lack of merit displayed flagrantly by the very people who espouse the cause. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Jeffrey, if this last point is true - where is your freedom of speech? There is far more context to this woman wearing the t-shirt who got "yanked out of line and arrested." For one thing, I'm not sure she was arrested. For another, she was a disruptive person wearing a shirt inappropriate for the venue with the purpose of disturbing the peace. I don't know much more about it, so someone feel free to fill us in. People are not arrested in the U.S. for simply wearing the political opponent's t-shirt, and to think it's true is naive. Perfectly legal, and yes, they are allowed to have public demonstrations. Did you think no and no? The rest of this, about bombing an airport, I can't even say is coherent so I don't know what you're asking. Saying that someone should do something, and helping them do it, are two radically different things. I really hope you can grasp that concept on your own, because I am not the person to help you do so if you require assistance. I've been over this already, here, and just don't have the patience for doing it again. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You're funny, Kennedy, playing both sides in the hopes that one would be right: "to big or two small"? Well, sure, there are better and more efficient things with which to smack somebody, but most of them are not convenient nor legal to carry day-to-day on your person. That's where the Kubotan comes in. The pokey aspect of that inch and a half is not the whole story. I have a DVD by Master Kubota (the originator of the thing) in which he demonstrates techniques with a Kubotan. Much of it has to do with swinging the keys at an attacker, not poking with the end of the bar. (Not all of them are polymer, many are aluminum, and as they're all very lightweight, the idea was never to swing the bar itself.) I'm by no means a trained expert with one, but I understand the concepts. It's not a panacea, but it's better than bare hands in some ways. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"