Re: Top General "Under the Gun"

rich hammett sent the following on 3/23/2007 11:48 AM:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Jim Gysin:
rich hammett sent the following on 3/21/2007 12:25 PM:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Jim Gysin:
Mark Stahl sent the following on 3/14/2007 7:50 PM:
"Jim Gysin" <jimgysin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4X%Jh.75292$as2.74181@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jon Enslin sent the following on 3/14/2007 12:54 PM:
In a happiness survey based upon a scale of one to ten, lottery winners
rated their happiness at seven; paraplegics said six.

Puedes corregir mi español... me lo gusta ... me llama masoquisto."Jon
Enslin" <jens...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173893966.692891.143010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Mar 14, 12:20 pm, "Dan S."
<danUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Scott Hendryx" <scott.hendryx.clot...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s3VJh.4061$tv6.3911@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dan S." <danUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:UTUJh.302$rj1.257@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Scott Hendryx" <scott.hendryx.clot...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:y5QJh.6840$yW.2323@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dan S." <danUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:P%JJh.6798$yW.6055@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The local news just promoed their story about the Chairman of the
Joint
Chief's comment calling homosexual acts in the military immoral.
They
said that he is "under the gun." Why don't they say that he is
being
lauded by many ... is it because HE IS!!!
--
Yours,
Dan S.
I thought his apology was right on. Never actually apologizing to
them
sick homo fags is the right thing to do.
I agree. I also see it as a political maneuver to give *all* of the
democrat presidential hopefuls a chance to show their unwavering
commitment to the gays ... which, of course, they did. It is just
so
interesting to watch the media, the republican emplaced joint
chiefs,
and
the dems all work so closely together to make a point.
I call it go to hell votes. Gays are going to hell, as are all
Democrats,
and definitely all left winged pico commi liberal media mongrels.
No one is going to "come out" to argue the other side of this debate
in
RSFC.
What "other side" are you talking about? The lead CNN.com story about
the apology said "The top U.S. military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, said
Tuesday he should have focused more on military policy and less on his
own opinion when he told a newspaper homosexual acts are immoral."
I don't know what to say other than he is right - he should keep his
personal opinons out of it. Just like if the US ever decides to allow
gays in the military, and get rid of the don't ask, don't tell policy,
it would be his 'job to carry out that policy.
Jon
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the Chiefs of the
five
armed forces, which make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are appointed by
the
Sec. of Defense. The Sec. of Defense, of course, is a political
appointment
made by the president. The only way the policy will be changed is if
there
is a Dem in the White House, a Dem House and a fillabuster proof Dem.
Senate. I just wonder to what extent the Pres. can change the internal
policies of the DoD by executive order? Barring that, I don't see it
happening in my lifetime.

It is immoral, and although I wouldn't quite advocate hanging them, I
also
don't think they should be afforded privileges in the name of rights.
Should people be "afforded privleges" because they are gay? Of course
not. Is anybody suggesting otherwise?
Not only are they suggesting it, but to give one example, they've
codified it in "hate crime" laws.

I get beat up in a dark alley, and there's one set of rules and
repercussions. A gay guy gets beat up in an alley, and there's a
different set of rules and repercussions. It doesn't get more "afforded
privileges" than this.
What are you talking about? Regardless of the utility of hate crime
legislation, there is no way in which the punishment meted out to someone's
attacker is a function of "privilege". I think you need a dictionary.
They get additional legal protections that I don't get. If they get
attacked, they get treated differently than I would be treated if I were
attacked,
What do you mean by that?

What part don't you understand? I've already alluded to the additional
disincentives that have been codified into law as "hate crimes," and
which can be used even when there is know way to no if any "hate" was
involved in the crime.

Bottom line: a random gay guy gets clubbed in an alley, his attacker
faces more problems even if he didn't know that the guy was gay than an
attacker would face if his victim just happened to be straight. This is
privileged and additional protection/disincentive as it relates to the
gay guy. Eventually, and to the extent possible, muggers would start
profiling and make sure that they went after only straight victims. My
risk of attack increases because I am not a protected and privileged class.

How do you see it as additional protection or disincentive if his
attacker is completely ignorant of the fact?

Huh? Where do you come up with that?

I don't see it as additional protection if the attacker is ignorant of
the fact. In such cases, the attacker is merely exposed to additional
charges and penalties, despite not knowing the fact.

For it to be an additional disincentive or protection, I've made it
clear that the attacker HAS to know the fact. And by knowing the fact,
he avoids attacking the gay guy and waits until someone he KNOWS is
straight to walk by, and then attacks the straight guy. In short,
disincentives for attacking a gay guy INCREASES the incentive for
attacking the straight guy, assuming that the attacker is hell-bent on
attacking SOMEONE. This is yet another way that PRIVILEGED status is
created for the person or group now at decreased risk of attack.

--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
.