or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › VOTE today
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

VOTE today - Page 13

post #181 of 311

Re: Rummy is going

On 12 Nov 2006 14:02:40 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Bill Sornson wrote:


>> I give up, Johnny. Go read your blogs.

>
>Citations for all the successfully opened schools and businesses in
>post invasion Iraq, please.
>
>Explanation of how the Iraqi economy can be doing well with 70%
>unemployment, and the middle classes fleeing the country by the
>hundreds of thousands, please.


Sorni -- where do you get your information about politics and current
events? Can you provide information on any of the stuff Johnny Sunset
is asking about -- or other examples of good news from Iraq?

Or can Hickey?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #182 of 311
Thread Starter 

Re: VOTE today

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> ,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> >
> > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > president.

>
> Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.


I know, those of us that were really in the military giggle whe we hear
some civilans talk about it. Most would not make it in the military, i
suspect Johnny is one of them. Too late to find out now.
post #183 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Peter wrote:

>
> >> yer a putz...

>
> > We have an example of excellent debating technique at hand.

>
> >> I think everybody ought to serve, too bad you are too old to be in
> >> the military, I would love to have you working for me.

>
> > So Peter Chisholm implies that he would like to use to arbitrary rule
> > of military command to carry out a personal grudge (since he has no
> > control over what I post to rec.bicycles.*)? I hope he did not behave
> > this way while an officer of the United States Navy!

>
> Johnny Sunset reverts to his chicken**** third-person debating "style" just
> seconds after chiding another poster.
>
> SUNSET BUSTED! LOL


Bill "who does not understand" Sornson:

I was addressing the entire group. Duh!

Don't you have anything to contribute besides this ridiculousness?

This ain't no email exchange, dude.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #184 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Tom Ace wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
> > > > > > > > > > we need for no good reason.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > England, Australia, Canada, and Israel have
> > > > > > > > > > gay personnel serving openly in their armed
> > > > > > > > > > forces, and it works well in each case.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Don't ask don't tell" helps perpetuate the notion
> > > > > > > > > > that gay people are second class. It should be
> > > > > > > > > > done away with.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
> > > > > > > > > murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
> > > > > > > > > overboard. US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
> > > > > > > > > countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
> > > > > > > > > openly gay people assigned to ships underway.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Peter,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you proud to have been a member of an organization that tolerates
> > > > > > > > the MURDER of homosexuals (or was an investigation with the full
> > > > > > > > resources available used to find and prosecute the MURDERERS)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who said anything about it being tolerated. The guys responsible were
> > > > > > > tried for murder.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this universally the case? Does or does not the Navy tolerate a
> > > > > > homophobic culture (assuming the expression of that culture does not
> > > > > > violate any specific regulations)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you believe that the greater homophobic attitudes in the US compared
> > > > > > > > to these other countries MORALLY justifies different treatment?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Furthermore, you believe that to qualify for elective office, one
> > > > > > > > should have been a member of a service where discrimination against
> > > > > > > > homosexuals is official and violence against them is tolerated?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above. Nothing was 'tolerated'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reply does not address the official policy of discrimination.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Good order and discipline trumps all, period, on deployd ships. Women
> > > > > > > > > and gay people have caused scads of problems onboard ship. Women are
> > > > > > > > > there to stay(except for some ships, like submarines), but openly gay
> > > > > > > > > vs women are completely different. DO NOT imply anything about my
> > > > > > > > > personal feelings about what I am saying. Gays are a fact of life,
> > > > > > > > > protecting them aboard ship is important, being 'open' doesn't help any
> > > > > > > > > ship's war fighting skills and any more than a hetero being 'open'
> > > > > > > > > about his sexual preferences. It is private, and should remian so.
> > > > > > > > > Remember, all you civilians, the USN is NOT like Star Trek or
> > > > > > > > > Battlestar Gallactica. Onboard a real ship, you do NOT have the rights
> > > > > > > > > you have when not on the ship. NO 'right' to privacy. or assembly, or
> > > > > > > > > speech. When you are deployed you are on duty 24 hours per day, you
> > > > > > > > > cannot find a nice quiet place to cuddle with your favorite 'someone'.
> > > > > > > > > That is directed to NOT happen by the CO. It still happens, but is
> > > > > > > > > punished. NJP, that's non juditial(sp?) punishment, NOT based on 'law'
> > > > > > > > > persay, but UCMJ..where disrupting good order and discipline is a
> > > > > > > > > punishable offense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is heterosexual behavior punished as severely as homosexual behavior in
> > > > > > > > these circumstances?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Absolutely, in the sense that if two hetero people are found to be
> > > > > > > screwing around, both are punished severely. If chain of command is
> > > > > > > violated, the senior is most often separated from the service, in some
> > > > > > > instances, court marshalled.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But in the case of homosexuals, they would be discharged solely on the
> > > > > > basis of being homosexual.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, I make no moral judgement on this. Just likie smoking
> > > > > marijuana..legal in some places, illegal in the USN, therefore
> > > > > punishable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Openly gay people in the USN is a bad idea. Gays are going to join,
> > > > > > > > > 'don't ask, don't tell' is a way to have them enjoy the full benefits
> > > > > > > > > of the military. If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
> > > > > > > > > being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Should not ALL sexual contact between members of the same service,
> > > > > > > > regardless of gender, be prohibited, and equally punished? That would
> > > > > > > > be a non-discriminatory solution.
> > > > > > > That is exactly what happens in coed ships, Like I said, it isn't
> > > > > > > NCC-1701D. First day at sea, the CO makes the 'policy' clear. NO public
> > > > > > > or private displays of affection. NO boyfriend-girlfriend type stuff at
> > > > > > > any ime, in any circumstance. BUT relationships happen, as you would
> > > > > > > expect among a bunch of young, healthy people at sea for long periods,
> > > > > > > and it really screws up 'good order and discipline'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The USN is not a 'slice of society'. People that WANT to learn to kill
> > > > > > > > > people and break things are not the norm. Military life is hard, but
> > > > > > > > > very satisfying. Try not to characterize what the USN 'should be' by
> > > > > > > > > your civilian experiences in the 'office'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are you advocating that only people who "WANT to learn to kill people
> > > > > > > > and break things" are fit for elective office?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having experience in the military, where you may be sent into harms
> > > > > > > way, would help immensely that person who may have to tell others to go
> > > > > > > into harms way. Anybody and most civilians who don't recognize what the
> > > > > > > military is there for, make mistaken assumptions about the military,
> > > > > > > like you are, or you are just arguing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The military also teaches that one obeys orders without question. While
> > > > > > that is generally considered necessary, intellectually curious,
> > > > > > thoughtful people do not function well in such a system. Should we bar
> > > > > > people with these characteristics from standing for elected office?
> > > > > > Similarly, should we ban people whose beliefs would make them
> > > > > > "conscientious objectors" from standing for elected office?
> > > >
> > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > >
> > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > president.
> > >
> > > yer a putz...

> >
> > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> >
> > We have an example of excellent debating technique at hand.
> >
> > > > > Good start...I'll say it again, military experience for the president
> > > > > would be a good idea, and altho more 'left' than right, John McCain
> > > > > scores a lot of points with me even if he wasn't a POW.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once we let the camels nose in the tent of these types of
> > > > > > qualifications for standing for elected office, what next? Can a
> > > > > > democracy be run this way?
> > > > >
> > > > > See above. Military experience is a huge benefit for anybody running
> > > > > for President.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm..., Franklin Roosevelt did not serve in the military, yet he led
> > > > the US to victory the last time its existence was truly threatened in
> > > > war.
> > >
> > > Even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Abraham Lincoln did not serve in the military, yet lead the US to
> > > > victory against the insurgency of southern succession.

> >
> > The two most important wars since the founding of the country were
> > successfully won by presidents without military service experience. Too
> > bad the record of presidents with military experience involves
> > attacking and/or interfering in smaller countries that posed no real
> > threat to the US.
> >
> > > > Too bad the people of the United States were so foolish to election Mr.
> > > > Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt to the Office of President of the United
> > > > States, when individuals with military service were available.
> > > >
> > > I think everybody ought to serve, too bad you are too old to be in the
> > > military, I would love to have you working for me.

> >
> > So Peter Chisholm implies that he would like to use to arbitrary rule
> > of military command to carry out a personal grudge (since he has no
> > control over what I post to rec.bicycles.*)? I hope he did not behave
> > this way while an officer of the United States Navy!
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

>
> tee hee...I don't need to justify to you how I behaved in the USN,
> flying fighters, putting my ass on the line even for people like you.


Then why bring it up? Is it the old "I'm superior because I was in the
military schitck"?

> It's easy to speculate what you would be like flying fighters for me
> but I don't think you would have made it past pre-flying ground school.


Resorting to personal insults - typical behavior of someone who has
lost the argument?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #185 of 311
Thread Starter 

Re: VOTE today


>
> So Peter Chisholm implies that he would like to use to arbitrary rule
> of military command to carry out a personal grudge (since he has no
> control over what I post to rec.bicycles.*)? I hope he did not behave
> this way while an officer of the United States Navy!
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!


Maybe what I meant is that i could tech you the ways of Naval Aviation,
how to be a leader, deployed for months at a time. How to effectively
fly and fight a high performance jet aircraft. How to fly it off the
pointy end, meet the enemy and defeat them, and then get the aircraft
back aboard, day or night any weather. Maybe i could teach you how to
be successful at an occupation that really means something, is
honorable this day and age, not the pablem that so many civilians waste
their time with. So you weren't in the military, what do you do, Tom?
Teacher, Doctor, law enforcement, what meaningful occupation have you
occupied your time with, say these last 10 years?
post #186 of 311
Thread Starter 

Re: VOTE today

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
> > > > > > > > > > > we need for no good reason.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > England, Australia, Canada, and Israel have
> > > > > > > > > > > gay personnel serving openly in their armed
> > > > > > > > > > > forces, and it works well in each case.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Don't ask don't tell" helps perpetuate the notion
> > > > > > > > > > > that gay people are second class. It should be
> > > > > > > > > > > done away with.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
> > > > > > > > > > murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
> > > > > > > > > > overboard. US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
> > > > > > > > > > countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
> > > > > > > > > > openly gay people assigned to ships underway.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Peter,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you proud to have been a member of an organization that tolerates
> > > > > > > > > the MURDER of homosexuals (or was an investigation with the full
> > > > > > > > > resources available used to find and prosecute the MURDERERS)?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who said anything about it being tolerated. The guys responsible were
> > > > > > > > tried for murder.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is this universally the case? Does or does not the Navy tolerate a
> > > > > > > homophobic culture (assuming the expression of that culture does not
> > > > > > > violate any specific regulations)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you believe that the greater homophobic attitudes in the US compared
> > > > > > > > > to these other countries MORALLY justifies different treatment?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Furthermore, you believe that to qualify for elective office, one
> > > > > > > > > should have been a member of a service where discrimination against
> > > > > > > > > homosexuals is official and violence against them is tolerated?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See above. Nothing was 'tolerated'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reply does not address the official policy of discrimination.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Good order and discipline trumps all, period, on deployd ships. Women
> > > > > > > > > > and gay people have caused scads of problems onboard ship. Women are
> > > > > > > > > > there to stay(except for some ships, like submarines), but openly gay
> > > > > > > > > > vs women are completely different. DO NOT imply anything about my
> > > > > > > > > > personal feelings about what I am saying. Gays are a fact of life,
> > > > > > > > > > protecting them aboard ship is important, being 'open' doesn't help any
> > > > > > > > > > ship's war fighting skills and any more than a hetero being 'open'
> > > > > > > > > > about his sexual preferences. It is private, and should remian so.
> > > > > > > > > > Remember, all you civilians, the USN is NOT like Star Trek or
> > > > > > > > > > Battlestar Gallactica. Onboard a real ship, you do NOT have the rights
> > > > > > > > > > you have when not on the ship. NO 'right' to privacy. or assembly, or
> > > > > > > > > > speech. When you are deployed you are on duty 24 hours per day, you
> > > > > > > > > > cannot find a nice quiet place to cuddle with your favorite 'someone'.
> > > > > > > > > > That is directed to NOT happen by the CO. It still happens, but is
> > > > > > > > > > punished. NJP, that's non juditial(sp?) punishment, NOT based on 'law'
> > > > > > > > > > persay, but UCMJ..where disrupting good order and discipline is a
> > > > > > > > > > punishable offense.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is heterosexual behavior punished as severely as homosexual behavior in
> > > > > > > > > these circumstances?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Absolutely, in the sense that if two hetero people are found to be
> > > > > > > > screwing around, both are punished severely. If chain of command is
> > > > > > > > violated, the senior is most often separated from the service, in some
> > > > > > > > instances, court marshalled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But in the case of homosexuals, they would be discharged solely on the
> > > > > > > basis of being homosexual.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, I make no moral judgement on this. Just likie smoking
> > > > > > marijuana..legal in some places, illegal in the USN, therefore
> > > > > > punishable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Openly gay people in the USN is a bad idea. Gays are going to join,
> > > > > > > > > > 'don't ask, don't tell' is a way to have them enjoy the full benefits
> > > > > > > > > > of the military. If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
> > > > > > > > > > being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Should not ALL sexual contact between members of the same service,
> > > > > > > > > regardless of gender, be prohibited, and equally punished? That would
> > > > > > > > > be a non-discriminatory solution.
> > > > > > > > That is exactly what happens in coed ships, Like I said, it isn't
> > > > > > > > NCC-1701D. First day at sea, the CO makes the 'policy' clear. NO public
> > > > > > > > or private displays of affection. NO boyfriend-girlfriend type stuff at
> > > > > > > > any ime, in any circumstance. BUT relationships happen, as you would
> > > > > > > > expect among a bunch of young, healthy people at sea for long periods,
> > > > > > > > and it really screws up 'good order and discipline'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The USN is not a 'slice of society'. People that WANT to learn to kill
> > > > > > > > > > people and break things are not the norm. Military life is hard, but
> > > > > > > > > > very satisfying. Try not to characterize what the USN 'should be' by
> > > > > > > > > > your civilian experiences in the 'office'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you advocating that only people who "WANT to learn to kill people
> > > > > > > > > and break things" are fit for elective office?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having experience in the military, where you may be sent into harms
> > > > > > > > way, would help immensely that person who may have to tell others to go
> > > > > > > > into harms way. Anybody and most civilians who don't recognize what the
> > > > > > > > military is there for, make mistaken assumptions about the military,
> > > > > > > > like you are, or you are just arguing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The military also teaches that one obeys orders without question. While
> > > > > > > that is generally considered necessary, intellectually curious,
> > > > > > > thoughtful people do not function well in such a system. Should we bar
> > > > > > > people with these characteristics from standing for elected office?
> > > > > > > Similarly, should we ban people whose beliefs would make them
> > > > > > > "conscientious objectors" from standing for elected office?
> > > > >
> > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > >
> > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > president.
> > > >
> > > > yer a putz...
> > >
> > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > >
> > > We have an example of excellent debating technique at hand.
> > >
> > > > > > Good start...I'll say it again, military experience for the president
> > > > > > would be a good idea, and altho more 'left' than right, John McCain
> > > > > > scores a lot of points with me even if he wasn't a POW.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once we let the camels nose in the tent of these types of
> > > > > > > qualifications for standing for elected office, what next? Can a
> > > > > > > democracy be run this way?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above. Military experience is a huge benefit for anybody running
> > > > > > for President.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm..., Franklin Roosevelt did not serve in the military, yet he led
> > > > > the US to victory the last time its existence was truly threatened in
> > > > > war.
> > > >
> > > > Even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Abraham Lincoln did not serve in the military, yet lead the US to
> > > > > victory against the insurgency of southern succession.
> > >
> > > The two most important wars since the founding of the country were
> > > successfully won by presidents without military service experience. Too
> > > bad the record of presidents with military experience involves
> > > attacking and/or interfering in smaller countries that posed no real
> > > threat to the US.
> > >
> > > > > Too bad the people of the United States were so foolish to election Mr.
> > > > > Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt to the Office of President of the United
> > > > > States, when individuals with military service were available.
> > > > >
> > > > I think everybody ought to serve, too bad you are too old to be in the
> > > > military, I would love to have you working for me.
> > >
> > > So Peter Chisholm implies that he would like to use to arbitrary rule
> > > of military command to carry out a personal grudge (since he has no
> > > control over what I post to rec.bicycles.*)? I hope he did not behave
> > > this way while an officer of the United States Navy!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

> >
> > tee hee...I don't need to justify to you how I behaved in the USN,
> > flying fighters, putting my ass on the line even for people like you.

>
> Then why bring it up? Is it the old "I'm superior because I was in the
> military schitck"?
>
> > It's easy to speculate what you would be like flying fighters for me
> > but I don't think you would have made it past pre-flying ground school.

>
> Resorting to personal insults - typical behavior of someone who has
> lost the argument?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!


So what do you do Tom?
post #187 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> ,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> >
> > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > president.

>
> Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.


Mr. Press:

Ah yes, another "I'm superior because I was in the military lecture"
combined with implied insult. [Yawn]

Do you deny the military requires unquestioning obedience to authority?

Try being open-minded enough to realize that those who prefer to
maintain the option of thinking for themselves and self-determination
also have something to offer to society.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #188 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
> > > > > > > > > > > > we need for no good reason.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > England, Australia, Canada, and Israel have
> > > > > > > > > > > > gay personnel serving openly in their armed
> > > > > > > > > > > > forces, and it works well in each case.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Don't ask don't tell" helps perpetuate the notion
> > > > > > > > > > > > that gay people are second class. It should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > done away with.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
> > > > > > > > > > > murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
> > > > > > > > > > > overboard. US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
> > > > > > > > > > > countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
> > > > > > > > > > > openly gay people assigned to ships underway.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Peter,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you proud to have been a member of an organization that tolerates
> > > > > > > > > > the MURDER of homosexuals (or was an investigation with the full
> > > > > > > > > > resources available used to find and prosecute the MURDERERS)?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Who said anything about it being tolerated. The guys responsible were
> > > > > > > > > tried for murder.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is this universally the case? Does or does not the Navy tolerate a
> > > > > > > > homophobic culture (assuming the expression of that culture does not
> > > > > > > > violate any specific regulations)?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you believe that the greater homophobic attitudes in the US compared
> > > > > > > > > > to these other countries MORALLY justifies different treatment?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, you believe that to qualify for elective office, one
> > > > > > > > > > should have been a member of a service where discrimination against
> > > > > > > > > > homosexuals is official and violence against them is tolerated?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See above. Nothing was 'tolerated'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reply does not address the official policy of discrimination.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Good order and discipline trumps all, period, on deployd ships. Women
> > > > > > > > > > > and gay people have caused scads of problems onboard ship. Women are
> > > > > > > > > > > there to stay(except for some ships, like submarines), but openly gay
> > > > > > > > > > > vs women are completely different. DO NOT imply anything about my
> > > > > > > > > > > personal feelings about what I am saying. Gays are a fact of life,
> > > > > > > > > > > protecting them aboard ship is important, being 'open' doesn't help any
> > > > > > > > > > > ship's war fighting skills and any more than a hetero being 'open'
> > > > > > > > > > > about his sexual preferences. It is private, and should remian so.
> > > > > > > > > > > Remember, all you civilians, the USN is NOT like Star Trek or
> > > > > > > > > > > Battlestar Gallactica. Onboard a real ship, you do NOT have the rights
> > > > > > > > > > > you have when not on the ship. NO 'right' to privacy. or assembly, or
> > > > > > > > > > > speech. When you are deployed you are on duty 24 hours per day, you
> > > > > > > > > > > cannot find a nice quiet place to cuddle with your favorite 'someone'.
> > > > > > > > > > > That is directed to NOT happen by the CO. It still happens, but is
> > > > > > > > > > > punished. NJP, that's non juditial(sp?) punishment, NOT based on 'law'
> > > > > > > > > > > persay, but UCMJ..where disrupting good order and discipline is a
> > > > > > > > > > > punishable offense.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is heterosexual behavior punished as severely as homosexual behavior in
> > > > > > > > > > these circumstances?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Absolutely, in the sense that if two hetero people are found to be
> > > > > > > > > screwing around, both are punished severely. If chain of command is
> > > > > > > > > violated, the senior is most often separated from the service, in some
> > > > > > > > > instances, court marshalled.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But in the case of homosexuals, they would be discharged solely on the
> > > > > > > > basis of being homosexual.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yep, I make no moral judgement on this. Just likie smoking
> > > > > > > marijuana..legal in some places, illegal in the USN, therefore
> > > > > > > punishable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Openly gay people in the USN is a bad idea. Gays are going to join,
> > > > > > > > > > > 'don't ask, don't tell' is a way to have them enjoy the full benefits
> > > > > > > > > > > of the military. If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
> > > > > > > > > > > being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Should not ALL sexual contact between members of the same service,
> > > > > > > > > > regardless of gender, be prohibited, and equally punished? That would
> > > > > > > > > > be a non-discriminatory solution.
> > > > > > > > > That is exactly what happens in coed ships, Like I said, it isn't
> > > > > > > > > NCC-1701D. First day at sea, the CO makes the 'policy' clear. NO public
> > > > > > > > > or private displays of affection. NO boyfriend-girlfriend type stuff at
> > > > > > > > > any ime, in any circumstance. BUT relationships happen, as you would
> > > > > > > > > expect among a bunch of young, healthy people at sea for long periods,
> > > > > > > > > and it really screws up 'good order and discipline'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The USN is not a 'slice of society'. People that WANT to learn to kill
> > > > > > > > > > > people and break things are not the norm. Military life is hard, but
> > > > > > > > > > > very satisfying. Try not to characterize what the USN 'should be' by
> > > > > > > > > > > your civilian experiences in the 'office'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you advocating that only people who "WANT to learn to kill people
> > > > > > > > > > and break things" are fit for elective office?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Having experience in the military, where you may be sent into harms
> > > > > > > > > way, would help immensely that person who may have to tell others to go
> > > > > > > > > into harms way. Anybody and most civilians who don't recognize what the
> > > > > > > > > military is there for, make mistaken assumptions about the military,
> > > > > > > > > like you are, or you are just arguing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The military also teaches that one obeys orders without question. While
> > > > > > > > that is generally considered necessary, intellectually curious,
> > > > > > > > thoughtful people do not function well in such a system. Should we bar
> > > > > > > > people with these characteristics from standing for elected office?
> > > > > > > > Similarly, should we ban people whose beliefs would make them
> > > > > > > > "conscientious objectors" from standing for elected office?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > > president.
> > > > >
> > > > > yer a putz...
> > > >
> > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > >
> > > > We have an example of excellent debating technique at hand.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Good start...I'll say it again, military experience for the president
> > > > > > > would be a good idea, and altho more 'left' than right, John McCain
> > > > > > > scores a lot of points with me even if he wasn't a POW.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Once we let the camels nose in the tent of these types of
> > > > > > > > qualifications for standing for elected office, what next? Can a
> > > > > > > > democracy be run this way?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above. Military experience is a huge benefit for anybody running
> > > > > > > for President.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm..., Franklin Roosevelt did not serve in the military, yet he led
> > > > > > the US to victory the last time its existence was truly threatened in
> > > > > > war.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Abraham Lincoln did not serve in the military, yet lead the US to
> > > > > > victory against the insurgency of southern succession.
> > > >
> > > > The two most important wars since the founding of the country were
> > > > successfully won by presidents without military service experience. Too
> > > > bad the record of presidents with military experience involves
> > > > attacking and/or interfering in smaller countries that posed no real
> > > > threat to the US.
> > > >
> > > > > > Too bad the people of the United States were so foolish to election Mr.
> > > > > > Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt to the Office of President of the United
> > > > > > States, when individuals with military service were available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think everybody ought to serve, too bad you are too old to be in the
> > > > > military, I would love to have you working for me.
> > > >
> > > > So Peter Chisholm implies that he would like to use to arbitrary rule
> > > > of military command to carry out a personal grudge (since he has no
> > > > control over what I post to rec.bicycles.*)? I hope he did not behave
> > > > this way while an officer of the United States Navy!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
> > >
> > > tee hee...I don't need to justify to you how I behaved in the USN,
> > > flying fighters, putting my ass on the line even for people like you.

> >
> > Then why bring it up? Is it the old "I'm superior because I was in the
> > military schitck"?
> >
> > > It's easy to speculate what you would be like flying fighters for me
> > > but I don't think you would have made it past pre-flying ground school.

> >
> > Resorting to personal insults - typical behavior of someone who has
> > lost the argument?
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

>
> So what do you do Tom?


I engage in off-topic flame wars on Usenet.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #189 of 311
Thread Starter 

Re: VOTE today

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
> > > > > > > > > > > we need for no good reason.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > England, Australia, Canada, and Israel have
> > > > > > > > > > > gay personnel serving openly in their armed
> > > > > > > > > > > forces, and it works well in each case.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Don't ask don't tell" helps perpetuate the notion
> > > > > > > > > > > that gay people are second class. It should be
> > > > > > > > > > > done away with.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
> > > > > > > > > > murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
> > > > > > > > > > overboard. US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
> > > > > > > > > > countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
> > > > > > > > > > openly gay people assigned to ships underway.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Peter,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you proud to have been a member of an organization that tolerates
> > > > > > > > > the MURDER of homosexuals (or was an investigation with the full
> > > > > > > > > resources available used to find and prosecute the MURDERERS)?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who said anything about it being tolerated. The guys responsible were
> > > > > > > > tried for murder.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is this universally the case? Does or does not the Navy tolerate a
> > > > > > > homophobic culture (assuming the expression of that culture does not
> > > > > > > violate any specific regulations)?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you believe that the greater homophobic attitudes in the US compared
> > > > > > > > > to these other countries MORALLY justifies different treatment?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Furthermore, you believe that to qualify for elective office, one
> > > > > > > > > should have been a member of a service where discrimination against
> > > > > > > > > homosexuals is official and violence against them is tolerated?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See above. Nothing was 'tolerated'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reply does not address the official policy of discrimination.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Good order and discipline trumps all, period, on deployd ships. Women
> > > > > > > > > > and gay people have caused scads of problems onboard ship. Women are
> > > > > > > > > > there to stay(except for some ships, like submarines), but openly gay
> > > > > > > > > > vs women are completely different. DO NOT imply anything about my
> > > > > > > > > > personal feelings about what I am saying. Gays are a fact of life,
> > > > > > > > > > protecting them aboard ship is important, being 'open' doesn't help any
> > > > > > > > > > ship's war fighting skills and any more than a hetero being 'open'
> > > > > > > > > > about his sexual preferences. It is private, and should remian so.
> > > > > > > > > > Remember, all you civilians, the USN is NOT like Star Trek or
> > > > > > > > > > Battlestar Gallactica. Onboard a real ship, you do NOT have the rights
> > > > > > > > > > you have when not on the ship. NO 'right' to privacy. or assembly, or
> > > > > > > > > > speech. When you are deployed you are on duty 24 hours per day, you
> > > > > > > > > > cannot find a nice quiet place to cuddle with your favorite 'someone'.
> > > > > > > > > > That is directed to NOT happen by the CO. It still happens, but is
> > > > > > > > > > punished. NJP, that's non juditial(sp?) punishment, NOT based on 'law'
> > > > > > > > > > persay, but UCMJ..where disrupting good order and discipline is a
> > > > > > > > > > punishable offense.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is heterosexual behavior punished as severely as homosexual behavior in
> > > > > > > > > these circumstances?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Absolutely, in the sense that if two hetero people are found to be
> > > > > > > > screwing around, both are punished severely. If chain of command is
> > > > > > > > violated, the senior is most often separated from the service, in some
> > > > > > > > instances, court marshalled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But in the case of homosexuals, they would be discharged solely on the
> > > > > > > basis of being homosexual.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, I make no moral judgement on this. Just likie smoking
> > > > > > marijuana..legal in some places, illegal in the USN, therefore
> > > > > > punishable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Openly gay people in the USN is a bad idea. Gays are going to join,
> > > > > > > > > > 'don't ask, don't tell' is a way to have them enjoy the full benefits
> > > > > > > > > > of the military. If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
> > > > > > > > > > being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Should not ALL sexual contact between members of the same service,
> > > > > > > > > regardless of gender, be prohibited, and equally punished? That would
> > > > > > > > > be a non-discriminatory solution.
> > > > > > > > That is exactly what happens in coed ships, Like I said, it isn't
> > > > > > > > NCC-1701D. First day at sea, the CO makes the 'policy' clear. NO public
> > > > > > > > or private displays of affection. NO boyfriend-girlfriend type stuff at
> > > > > > > > any ime, in any circumstance. BUT relationships happen, as you would
> > > > > > > > expect among a bunch of young, healthy people at sea for long periods,
> > > > > > > > and it really screws up 'good order and discipline'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The USN is not a 'slice of society'. People that WANT to learn to kill
> > > > > > > > > > people and break things are not the norm. Military life is hard, but
> > > > > > > > > > very satisfying. Try not to characterize what the USN 'should be' by
> > > > > > > > > > your civilian experiences in the 'office'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are you advocating that only people who "WANT to learn to kill people
> > > > > > > > > and break things" are fit for elective office?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Having experience in the military, where you may be sent into harms
> > > > > > > > way, would help immensely that person who may have to tell others to go
> > > > > > > > into harms way. Anybody and most civilians who don't recognize what the
> > > > > > > > military is there for, make mistaken assumptions about the military,
> > > > > > > > like you are, or you are just arguing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The military also teaches that one obeys orders without question. While
> > > > > > > that is generally considered necessary, intellectually curious,
> > > > > > > thoughtful people do not function well in such a system. Should we bar
> > > > > > > people with these characteristics from standing for elected office?
> > > > > > > Similarly, should we ban people whose beliefs would make them
> > > > > > > "conscientious objectors" from standing for elected office?
> > > > >
> > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > >
> > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > president.
> > > >
> > > > yer a putz...
> > >
> > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > >
> > > We have an example of excellent debating technique at hand.
> > >
> > > > > > Good start...I'll say it again, military experience for the president
> > > > > > would be a good idea, and altho more 'left' than right, John McCain
> > > > > > scores a lot of points with me even if he wasn't a POW.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once we let the camels nose in the tent of these types of
> > > > > > > qualifications for standing for elected office, what next? Can a
> > > > > > > democracy be run this way?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above. Military experience is a huge benefit for anybody running
> > > > > > for President.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm..., Franklin Roosevelt did not serve in the military, yet he led
> > > > > the US to victory the last time its existence was truly threatened in
> > > > > war.
> > > >
> > > > Even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Abraham Lincoln did not serve in the military, yet lead the US to
> > > > > victory against the insurgency of southern succession.
> > >
> > > The two most important wars since the founding of the country were
> > > successfully won by presidents without military service experience. Too
> > > bad the record of presidents with military experience involves
> > > attacking and/or interfering in smaller countries that posed no real
> > > threat to the US.
> > >
> > > > > Too bad the people of the United States were so foolish to election Mr.
> > > > > Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt to the Office of President of the United
> > > > > States, when individuals with military service were available.
> > > > >
> > > > I think everybody ought to serve, too bad you are too old to be in the
> > > > military, I would love to have you working for me.
> > >
> > > So Peter Chisholm implies that he would like to use to arbitrary rule
> > > of military command to carry out a personal grudge (since he has no
> > > control over what I post to rec.bicycles.*)? I hope he did not behave
> > > this way while an officer of the United States Navy!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

> >
> > tee hee...I don't need to justify to you how I behaved in the USN,
> > flying fighters, putting my ass on the line even for people like you.

>
> Then why bring it up? Is it the old "I'm superior because I was in the
> military schitck"?
>
> > It's easy to speculate what you would be like flying fighters for me
> > but I don't think you would have made it past pre-flying ground school.

>
> Resorting to personal insults - typical behavior of someone who has
> lost the argument?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!


I didn't say I was superior in my choice of career, I just said I
doubted you would have been successful trying to be a Navy Pilot or
Naval Officer. Some can and want to do it, most cannot.
post #190 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > ,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > >
> > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > president.

> >
> > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.

>
> I know, those of us that were really in the military giggle whe we hear
> some civilans talk about it. Most would not make it in the military, i
> suspect Johnny is one of them. Too late to find out now.


Yeah, I would not have dealt well taking orders from people
significantly less intelligent and informed than I am.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #191 of 311
Thread Starter 

Re: VOTE today

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > ,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > >
> > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > president.

> >
> > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.

>
> Mr. Press:
>
> Ah yes, another "I'm superior because I was in the military lecture"
> combined with implied insult. [Yawn]
>
> Do you deny the military requires unquestioning obedience to authority?
>
> Try being open-minded enough to realize that those who prefer to
> maintain the option of thinking for themselves and self-determination
> also have something to offer to society.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!


I deny that you have any idea what it's like to be in the military, so
statements like above, to 'Mr. Press, doesn't carry a lot of weight,
since you are comparing what you do as a civilian to those in the
military, something you have no idea about.

Serving one's country is not to be sneezed at, in spite of your
implication that 'thinking for oneself and self determination' is
somehow superior. ..It CAN be, depends on what you do-what do you do,
Tom?
post #192 of 311
Thread Starter 

Re: VOTE today

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > > ,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > >
> > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > president.
> > >
> > > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.

> >
> > I know, those of us that were really in the military giggle whe we hear
> > some civilans talk about it. Most would not make it in the military, i
> > suspect Johnny is one of them. Too late to find out now.

>
> Yeah, I would not have dealt well taking orders from people
> significantly less intelligent and informed than I am.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!


Great answer and not unexpected. You deserve to be a civilian but you
still haven't told us what you do...ashamed of it?
post #193 of 311
Thread Starter 

Re: VOTE today

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > > ,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > >
> > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > president.
> > >
> > > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.

> >
> > I know, those of us that were really in the military giggle whe we hear
> > some civilans talk about it. Most would not make it in the military, i
> > suspect Johnny is one of them. Too late to find out now.

>
> Yeah, I would not have dealt well taking orders from people
> significantly less intelligent and informed than I am.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!


yep, military people are dopes. Stay in school and do well cuz if you
don't you'll end up in Iraq!!
post #194 of 311
Thread Starter 

Re: VOTE today

I'm out-

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1163362639.427845.316750@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> > > ,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > >
> > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > president.
> > >
> > > Rhetoric from one who has no experience in the
> > > military. You have no idea. All that emotion, and no
> > > substance. It's like reading a crack pot in sci.math
> > > lecturing tenured professors on mathematics.

> >
> > I know, those of us that were really in the military giggle whe we hear
> > some civilans talk about it. Most would not make it in the military, i
> > suspect Johnny is one of them. Too late to find out now.

>
> Yeah, I would not have dealt well taking orders from people
> significantly less intelligent and informed than I am.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
post #195 of 311

Re: VOTE today

Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
> > > > > > > > > > > > we need for no good reason.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > England, Australia, Canada, and Israel have
> > > > > > > > > > > > gay personnel serving openly in their armed
> > > > > > > > > > > > forces, and it works well in each case.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Don't ask don't tell" helps perpetuate the notion
> > > > > > > > > > > > that gay people are second class. It should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > done away with.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
> > > > > > > > > > > murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
> > > > > > > > > > > overboard. US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
> > > > > > > > > > > countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
> > > > > > > > > > > openly gay people assigned to ships underway.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Peter,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you proud to have been a member of an organization that tolerates
> > > > > > > > > > the MURDER of homosexuals (or was an investigation with the full
> > > > > > > > > > resources available used to find and prosecute the MURDERERS)?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Who said anything about it being tolerated. The guys responsible were
> > > > > > > > > tried for murder.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is this universally the case? Does or does not the Navy tolerate a
> > > > > > > > homophobic culture (assuming the expression of that culture does not
> > > > > > > > violate any specific regulations)?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you believe that the greater homophobic attitudes in the US compared
> > > > > > > > > > to these other countries MORALLY justifies different treatment?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, you believe that to qualify for elective office, one
> > > > > > > > > > should have been a member of a service where discrimination against
> > > > > > > > > > homosexuals is official and violence against them is tolerated?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See above. Nothing was 'tolerated'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reply does not address the official policy of discrimination.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Good order and discipline trumps all, period, on deployd ships. Women
> > > > > > > > > > > and gay people have caused scads of problems onboard ship. Women are
> > > > > > > > > > > there to stay(except for some ships, like submarines), but openly gay
> > > > > > > > > > > vs women are completely different. DO NOT imply anything about my
> > > > > > > > > > > personal feelings about what I am saying. Gays are a fact of life,
> > > > > > > > > > > protecting them aboard ship is important, being 'open' doesn't help any
> > > > > > > > > > > ship's war fighting skills and any more than a hetero being 'open'
> > > > > > > > > > > about his sexual preferences. It is private, and should remian so.
> > > > > > > > > > > Remember, all you civilians, the USN is NOT like Star Trek or
> > > > > > > > > > > Battlestar Gallactica. Onboard a real ship, you do NOT have the rights
> > > > > > > > > > > you have when not on the ship. NO 'right' to privacy. or assembly, or
> > > > > > > > > > > speech. When you are deployed you are on duty 24 hours per day, you
> > > > > > > > > > > cannot find a nice quiet place to cuddle with your favorite 'someone'.
> > > > > > > > > > > That is directed to NOT happen by the CO. It still happens, but is
> > > > > > > > > > > punished. NJP, that's non juditial(sp?) punishment, NOT based on 'law'
> > > > > > > > > > > persay, but UCMJ..where disrupting good order and discipline is a
> > > > > > > > > > > punishable offense.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is heterosexual behavior punished as severely as homosexual behavior in
> > > > > > > > > > these circumstances?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Absolutely, in the sense that if two hetero people are found to be
> > > > > > > > > screwing around, both are punished severely. If chain of command is
> > > > > > > > > violated, the senior is most often separated from the service, in some
> > > > > > > > > instances, court marshalled.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But in the case of homosexuals, they would be discharged solely on the
> > > > > > > > basis of being homosexual.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yep, I make no moral judgement on this. Just likie smoking
> > > > > > > marijuana..legal in some places, illegal in the USN, therefore
> > > > > > > punishable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Openly gay people in the USN is a bad idea. Gays are going to join,
> > > > > > > > > > > 'don't ask, don't tell' is a way to have them enjoy the full benefits
> > > > > > > > > > > of the military. If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
> > > > > > > > > > > being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Should not ALL sexual contact between members of the same service,
> > > > > > > > > > regardless of gender, be prohibited, and equally punished? That would
> > > > > > > > > > be a non-discriminatory solution.
> > > > > > > > > That is exactly what happens in coed ships, Like I said, it isn't
> > > > > > > > > NCC-1701D. First day at sea, the CO makes the 'policy' clear. NO public
> > > > > > > > > or private displays of affection. NO boyfriend-girlfriend type stuff at
> > > > > > > > > any ime, in any circumstance. BUT relationships happen, as you would
> > > > > > > > > expect among a bunch of young, healthy people at sea for long periods,
> > > > > > > > > and it really screws up 'good order and discipline'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The USN is not a 'slice of society'. People that WANT to learn to kill
> > > > > > > > > > > people and break things are not the norm. Military life is hard, but
> > > > > > > > > > > very satisfying. Try not to characterize what the USN 'should be' by
> > > > > > > > > > > your civilian experiences in the 'office'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you advocating that only people who "WANT to learn to kill people
> > > > > > > > > > and break things" are fit for elective office?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Having experience in the military, where you may be sent into harms
> > > > > > > > > way, would help immensely that person who may have to tell others to go
> > > > > > > > > into harms way. Anybody and most civilians who don't recognize what the
> > > > > > > > > military is there for, make mistaken assumptions about the military,
> > > > > > > > > like you are, or you are just arguing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The military also teaches that one obeys orders without question. While
> > > > > > > > that is generally considered necessary, intellectually curious,
> > > > > > > > thoughtful people do not function well in such a system. Should we bar
> > > > > > > > people with these characteristics from standing for elected office?
> > > > > > > > Similarly, should we ban people whose beliefs would make them
> > > > > > > > "conscientious objectors" from standing for elected office?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > > president.
> > > > >
> > > > > yer a putz...
> > > >
> > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > >
> > > > We have an example of excellent debating technique at hand.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Good start...I'll say it again, military experience for the president
> > > > > > > would be a good idea, and altho more 'left' than right, John McCain
> > > > > > > scores a lot of points with me even if he wasn't a POW.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Once we let the camels nose in the tent of these types of
> > > > > > > > qualifications for standing for elected office, what next? Can a
> > > > > > > > democracy be run this way?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above. Military experience is a huge benefit for anybody running
> > > > > > > for President.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm..., Franklin Roosevelt did not serve in the military, yet he led
> > > > > > the US to victory the last time its existence was truly threatened in
> > > > > > war.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Abraham Lincoln did not serve in the military, yet lead the US to
> > > > > > victory against the insurgency of southern succession.
> > > >
> > > > The two most important wars since the founding of the country were
> > > > successfully won by presidents without military service experience. Too
> > > > bad the record of presidents with military experience involves
> > > > attacking and/or interfering in smaller countries that posed no real
> > > > threat to the US.
> > > >
> > > > > > Too bad the people of the United States were so foolish to election Mr.
> > > > > > Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt to the Office of President of the United
> > > > > > States, when individuals with military service were available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think everybody ought to serve, too bad you are too old to be in the
> > > > > military, I would love to have you working for me.
> > > >
> > > > So Peter Chisholm implies that he would like to use to arbitrary rule
> > > > of military command to carry out a personal grudge (since he has no
> > > > control over what I post to rec.bicycles.*)? I hope he did not behave
> > > > this way while an officer of the United States Navy!
> > > >
> > >
> > > tee hee...I don't need to justify to you how I behaved in the USN,
> > > flying fighters, putting my ass on the line even for people like you.

> >
> > Then why bring it up? Is it the old "I'm superior because I was in the
> > military schitck"?
> >
> > > It's easy to speculate what you would be like flying fighters for me
> > > but I don't think you would have made it past pre-flying ground school.

> >
> > Resorting to personal insults - typical behavior of someone who has
> > lost the argument?
> >

>
> I didn't say I was superior in my choice of career, I just said I
> doubted you would have been successful trying to be a Navy Pilot or
> Naval Officer. Some can and want to do it, most cannot.


As for being an officer, the education part of it would have been easy,
but I would never have had a successful career since I would not fit in
socially or be compatible with the authoritarian requirements.

I doubt the Navy selects persons with inherently poor coordination,
difficulty in processing visual information, poor balance and spatial
coordination, procedural memory etc. for pilot training. I doubt the
education based part of the ground school would have presented much of
a challenge.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › VOTE today