"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:05:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

How about this, Dave? Anything on this page you agree with?

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/...cticesMain.cfm


I agree that the cops should be allowed to do their jobs. Rodney King
should be in jail, and not the recipient of a large sum of money.

When people are told to freeze by the cops, they should do so.
Responding with any action which could be interpreted as resisting
arrest is an opening for the cops to use whatever force they deem
necessary to subdue you.

What I consider brutality is when the cops use more force than
necessary, or when they use force when the perpetrator is sufficiently
restrained.

If a cop needs 41 shots to kill his suspect, he needs to go back to
the range for some remedial firearms training and practice. It
shouldn't take more than two or three well placed shots to bring down
a scumbag. There's no need to waste good ammo.......

Dave



Good. Then you agree that the ACLU does some good work. Thank you. I knew
you didn't mean what you said earlier.

"Harry Krause" wrote ...

You're much more contemplative than I am, Chuckster. Me, I think Dave is a
jumble of repressed sexuality.


I offer the following without comment...

-rick-

--

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html


Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal


WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear,
anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly
heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of
repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or
denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological
Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent
with that theory.


Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment
involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by
the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the
study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms
of sexual arousal and experience.


Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli
consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes
(but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal
was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and
records male tumescence.


Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video
depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two
women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in
degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the
video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a
significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual
video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

"-rick-" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote ...

You're much more contemplative than I am, Chuckster. Me, I think Dave is
a jumble of repressed sexuality.


I offer the following without comment...

-rick-

--

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html


Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

Dave's gonna want to spank you real hard for posting this. If you refuse,
he'll tie you up with his belt.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:04:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"-rick-" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote ...

You're much more contemplative than I am, Chuckster. Me, I think Dave is
a jumble of repressed sexuality.


I offer the following without comment...

-rick-

--

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html


Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

Dave's gonna want to spank you real hard for posting this. If you refuse,
he'll tie you up with his belt.


Why would I do that? I'm not homophobic. The fact that I don't approve
of the lifestyle and that I find it biologically abnormal, does not
mean that I "fear" them.


Dave

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 07:12:53 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"-rick-" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote ...


You're much more contemplative than I am, Chuckster. Me, I think Dave is
a jumble of repressed sexuality.


I offer the following without comment...

-rick-

--

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html


Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal


Dave's gonna want to spank you real hard for posting this. If you refuse,
he'll tie you up with his belt.


There's nothing quite like the hypocrisy of the far right, especially on
matters sexual. The Republicans sure know how to play those tunes, eh?

Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the
pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and
glitter" magazines.

Keep your activities to yourself. The rest of us don't care what the
top 1000 women surveyed did in the bedroom last night......


Dave

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:47:08 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On 05 Jan 2005 16:18:39 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:


THAT is the problem. They'll defend the right of people to do just
about anything. I don't believe that certain things should be allowed
to be displayed in public out of respect. I don't want to see bare
chested women, (or men) walking around in public. I don't think the
KKK has a right to exist let along parading around in a public parade.
I don't want to see drag queens flaunting their abhorrent , deviant
behavior in a public parade that I want to take my 5 year old to.

In summary, you support the first amendment only as long as those exercising
freedom of speech confine that speech to something *you* think is appropriate.


No, I believe that freedom of expression (speech is only one aspect of
it) should be limited to those activities which are deemed appropriate
by the majority of society. What *I* think is only relevant if it is
in agreement with what the majority wants.

Your kinds of limitation on freedom of expression is what leads to
pogroms, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.

Harry, you are too busy admiring every word you write to ever take the
time to understand what other people really think.

Dave

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:50:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


No, I believe that freedom of expression (speech is only one aspect of
it) should be limited to those activities which are deemed appropriate
by the majority of society. What *I* think is only relevant if it is
in agreement with what the majority wants.

Based on THAT sort of nonsesnical thinking, you and the "majority" could
make it illegal for teens to wander around the mall with rings through their
noses or eyebrows.

If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it? Have you
always wanted to swim upstream, or had some deep rooted desire to be
"different" just to **** other people off?



You realize, of course, that the opposite to reasonable restriction is
a slippery slope chain of events which leads to anarchy. Unless you
support anarchy, the only difference between you and I, is where we
draw the line.

Define "anarchy".

You're a smart guy (I think), you look it up.


I believe that adults should think for themselves.

That's fine until one of those "free thinking adults" does something
which infringes on the rights of someone else. Then what?

What's wrong with that? You advocate infringing on private property rights
all the time, remember?


I advocate nothing of the sort. But be careful Doug, by embracing
anarchy, your property rights go out the window.


It's funny that you seem to be advocating a free-for-all attitude with
respect to freedom, yet also seem to support the right of minority
people to be "offended" by the acts, customs, and traditions of the
majority. A curious duplicity if I must say.

Being offended is one thing. Physically stopping someone's actions is
another. I think nose, tongue and eyebrow rings are disgusting and that the
people who wear them are idiots. But, I have no intention of doing anything
to stop the behavior.

Stopping silly little expressions which have no potential to harm
another person, either physically or mentally, makes little sense, and
has no logical basis. But those activities which do adversely affect
other people, should be regulated for the greater good of the
community.


YOU would put a stop to certain actions for another, very common reason: You
have an abnormal need to control other people.

I have no such need. You simply cannot comprehend the principles, so
therefore you project your thoughts onto me.

Funny thing, you seem to have no problem with restrictions on thing
like dogs, when it suits you.....

Dave

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:35:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:05:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

How about this, Dave? Anything on this page you agree with?

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/...cticesMain.cfm


I agree that the cops should be allowed to do their jobs. Rodney King
should be in jail, and not the recipient of a large sum of money.

When people are told to freeze by the cops, they should do so.
Responding with any action which could be interpreted as resisting
arrest is an opening for the cops to use whatever force they deem
necessary to subdue you.

What I consider brutality is when the cops use more force than
necessary, or when they use force when the perpetrator is sufficiently
restrained.

If a cop needs 41 shots to kill his suspect, he needs to go back to
the range for some remedial firearms training and practice. It
shouldn't take more than two or three well placed shots to bring down
a scumbag. There's no need to waste good ammo.......

Dave



Good. Then you agree that the ACLU does some good work. Thank you. I knew
you didn't mean what you said earlier.


I never said that EVERYTHING the ACLU does is bad. God!, what does a
person have to do to pound in some sense into your thick head.

I said that the ACLU, as a rights advocate, has the duty to take on
all cases of "rights" abuse, including some cases which should never
see the light of day. By doing so they blaze the trail for all sorts
of deviant behavior to see the light of day, under the guise of
"freedom of expression".

Dave

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:36:57 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

What I consider brutality is when the cops use more force than
necessary, or when they use force when the perpetrator is sufficiently
restrained.


How about when the cops use deadly force to bring down someone who has
done nothing wrong, or is reaching for his wallet to produce ID?

There is a simple way to avoid being shot by the cops. When instructed
to freeze, you do so, and place your hands in the air in a
non-threatening posture. Making moves which could be interpreted as
aggressive is a sure fire way to get a bullet through the chest.

A cop is under life threatening circumstances every day. In many cases
he has a split second to make the decision to use deadly force. If he
hesitates too long, HE might become the victim.

I know a bunch of cops, one of which is a neighbor. I do not envy
their jobs. The have a lot of responsibility and seemingly diminishing
support from the community. While there are certainly some "bad" cops,
who do not deserve to wear the badge, I hold no ill will toward a cop
who shoots someone who makes a threatening gesture our of either
defiance or stupidity.

Dave

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Sex belongs in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms. Not on the
pages of the news, the prime time TV channels, or in "flash and
glitter" magazines.


You should have explained that to the GOP during the Clinton years.

Krause tags his opponent on the chin without even spilling his beer, and
picks up another 5 points......and we break for a word from our sponsors.