Sicko walks into gay bar, maims patrons with hatchet and gun

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

No, he's absolutely right. This thread was about the attacker. It was about what I thought (since that was how it seemed to be reported initially) that no one stayed behind to try to overcome the attacker.

I have since made comments that ameloriate that position, have I not? Additional stories I have since read say that some of the others attempted to take out the maniac.

I am sorry to hear that his victims have died. (Quite glad to read that he has.)


-
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[labrys 0]

Jeffrey,

The fact that you admitted you were wrong about the victims not trying to take this guy out doesn't do jack shit to ameloriate the fact that you "attacked" the victims of this brutal act in your original post.

You've expressed your opinion that if "victims" had been armed, attacks like these might be avoided in several posts about other crimes. This is the only one in which you chose to call the victims pussies for not fighting back.

I think that's the point, huh? What motivated you to attack these victims and not the others in the posts you've been active in?

Yeah..edit to add your original remarks. You're sure your post was about the attacker and not the victims?

Quote

Anyway, I think I am more sickened (can you tell?) by the attitudes of these people than I am about the maniac who attacked them.

Owned by Remi #?

[dorbie 0]

All's well that ends well;

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/05/robida/index.html

[labrys 0]

What part of this situation with four wounded civilians, one dead police officer, and one dead suspect be considered ending well?

Owned by Remi #?

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

No, he's absolutely right.

Well, damn, that's something you don't read every day.

[Airman1270 0]

Hey Jeffrey:

The first I'd heard about the incident was when I saw this thread last week. I've since found the story, and was not surpised to see the phrase "hate crime" used within the first paragraph.

Funny, I remember an incident in September 1999 at a chruch in Ft. Worth, Texas in which a guy entered the building and shot up a youth group meeting while shouting anti-Christian comments. Nearly a dozen teens and adults were killed.

I searched a number of news sources in vain to see the incident described as a "hate crime" when that's clearly what it was. Yet, the only place I saw the term used was on my own newscast in Atlanta.

Likewise, a bunch of queers rioted at a church in San Francisco in September 1993, interrupting the service, damaging property, and scaring children. The police were under orders NOT to arrest the demonstrators. And, of course, news editors nationwide did not think the incident deserved "hate crime" status, along with the usual concomitant saturation coverage and expressed concerns for the victims.

Come to think of it, maybe the guy with the hatchet had a point.

Seriously, I worked at a gay community on Fire Island in 1980, and remember when the gays' political agenda consisted of "leave us alone." They have since gone on to demand special rights and have created animosity among people who never used to have a problem with them by insulting anyone who questions their extreme agenda.

My attitude hasn't changed, but the people who were calling me open-minded and tolerant 25 years ago are calling me a "bigot" today. I don't appreciate this.

Cheers,
Jon S.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

My attitude hasn't changed, but the people who were calling me open-minded and tolerant 25 years ago are calling me a "bigot" today. I don't appreciate this.

Gee, maybe it is because you say things like this:

Quote

Likewise, a bunch of queers rioted at a church in San Francisco in September 1993, interrupting the service, damaging property, and scaring children.
...

Come to think of it, maybe the guy with the hatchet had a point.

Hard to appreciate when someone points out some truth that you don't like.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Quote

My attitude hasn't changed, but the people who were calling me open-minded and tolerant 25 years ago are calling me a "bigot" today. I don't appreciate this.

Gee, maybe it is because you say things like this:

Quote

Likewise, a bunch of queers rioted at a church in San Francisco in September 1993, interrupting the service, damaging property, and scaring children.
...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
They rioted, caused property damage, scared children, and were immune from arrest due to their favored political status, and you're upset because I described them as "queers." Amazing.

Don't fall so easily into my trap.

Jon

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Come to think of it, maybe the guy with the hatchet had a point.

Whoever was calling you "open-minded and tolerant" 25 years ago may have simply been mistaken. I doubt they'd have repeated the comment if they knew you sympathized with a rampaging murderous nazi.

Or maybe standards have changed. Maybe sympathizing with rampaging murderous nazis was more acceptable 25 years ago.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[labrys 0]

Quote

My attitude hasn't changed, but the people who were calling me open-minded and tolerant 25 years ago are calling me a "bigot" today. I don't appreciate this.

And the people who are calling you a bigot don't give a rats ass if that takes you out of your comfort zone.

Owned by Remi #?

[micro 0]

situations like this are the reason why I am never unarmed. i'm always got something with me. while i try to stay w/i the boundaries of the law, that isn't always possible while still maintaining a level of protection that I'm comfortable with. hopefully someday soon, lawmakers will see that restricting the rights of the general public from protecting themselves is one of the biggest travesties of justice ever.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

They rioted, caused property damage, scared children, and were immune from arrest due to their favored political status, and you're upset because I described them as "queers." Amazing.

Don't fall so easily into my trap.

Jon

Nice try. But I was only responding to how you say you are not bigoted and then show just how you are. That was my point and I made it clear. You sidestep my point to make me look bad.

And it certainly is bad what they did, but I still would not call them queers. In the same way, it a black man shot up a bank and killed 8 people, I would not say, "Some nigger shot up the bank." All that would do is take away from what he had done and make me look like a bigot.

Like you just did.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[micro 0]

Quote

Like you just did.

spot on man, spot on.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Funny, I remember an incident in September 1999 at a chruch in Ft. Worth, Texas in which a guy entered the building and shot up a youth group meeting while shouting anti-Christian comments. Nearly a dozen teens and adults were killed.

I searched a number of news sources in vain to see the incident described as a "hate crime" when that's clearly what it was

For an explanation of why this is, see this post:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2059376;

I'll quote the prescient language:

Quote

On the other hand, right-wingers aren't allowed to hate. Racism is bad only if propogated by whites. Racism is good if propogated against whites. White Democrats and Republicans alike have spewed hatred towards other racial groups. But, the left has a monopoly on anti-white racism (and anti-asian) racism. That kind is politically acceptable.

There are other politically acceptable hatreds. Homphobia? Unacceptable. Hatred of homophobes? Acceptable.

Hatred of whitey? Acceptable. Hatred by whitey? Unacceptable.

Hatred of Christians? Acceptable, if not outright encouraged. Hatred of Jews? acceptable, so long as not by Christians.

Hatred by Christians? Not acceptable. Love by Christians? Not acceptable (for it must be based on hate). Love of Christians? Fuck no.

Hatred of Catholics? Acceptable (their priests are all pederasts, right?) Hatred of Muslims? HELL, NO! They might attack us again, which they did because we hate them.

Hatred of corporations? Oh, yes! You're turning me on! Hatred of the welfare queen? No way, unless she's white trailer trash, which is acceptable.

Hatred of Christians is acceptable, and therefore not "hatred." Obviously, Christians did something to that person that made him lash out to shoot them up. We should have sought to understand why he did what he did, and blamed the Christians for causing it.

Quote

Come to think of it, maybe the guy with the hatchet had a point.

He can make whatever point he wants to make. If he wants to hate away, he should be free to do so. But when he harms others, full societal wrath should be directed at him, the same as for others who harm people, regardles of their reasons.

Perhaps he sought martyrdom of some form. The guy was an asshole who killed innocent people.

Quote

My attitude hasn't changed, but the people who were calling me open-minded and tolerant 25 years ago are calling me a "bigot" today. I don't appreciate this.

Yeah, Larry Kramer wrote abotu his experiences with this stuff.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Airman1270 0]

...Whoever was calling you "open-minded and tolerant" 25 years ago may have simply been mistaken. I doubt they'd have repeated the comment if they knew you sympathized with a rampaging murderous nazi...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I don't. You are mistaken.

Jon

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

Quote

They rioted, caused property damage, scared children, and were immune from arrest due to their favored political status, and you're upset because I described them as "queers." Amazing.

Don't fall so easily into my trap.

Jon

Nice try. But I was only responding to how you say you are not bigoted and then show just how you are...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

How so. By using the word "queers?" This is the word they used to describe each other.

Let's get the chronology straight:

1) I had no unkind attitude toward them, and in fact could relate to their desire to be left alone and live their lives in peace.

2) As I got older and began to pay attention to cultural/political issues, I noticed that they were becoming more aggressive, demanding special rights and special treatment. Furthermore, I noticed that they were making offensive accusations against anybody who did not agree with their political agenda. It became obvious that they were using words like "bigot" to describe ANYBODY who disagreed with them.

Scenario:

You and I are friends and have been for a long time. Suddenly I begin slapping you in the face and calling you unkind names, accusing you of doing bad things. You are taken by surprise and are somewhat bewildered. Any attempt on your part to ask for an explanation results in further attacks. You begin to deny the accusations and try to explain why you are not guilty. The attacks escalate.

Finally, you become disgusted and quit trying. Eventually the subject comes up in conversation and you vent your frustration at being portrayed as a creep by someone you once respected. Other people interpret this as "proof" that the original accusations were accurate. Then some guy on a skydiving website assumes you're a bigot because you're not kissing the ass of the person who started the conflict in the first place...

Cheers,
Jon

• Quote

[Amazon 7]

Quote

As I got older and began to pay attention to cultural/political issues, I noticed that they were becoming more aggressive, demanding special rights and special treatment.

Could you enlighten us all to what sort of special rights they want... I keep getting confused by this whole militant homosexual agenda.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Could you enlighten us all to what sort of special rights they want... I keep getting confused by this whole militant homosexual agenda.

I requested demanded a pony.

Owned by Remi #?

[Amazon 7]

Are you going to marry the pony?

I heard the Czarina of Russia was fond of equines as well

[labrys 0]

No, I married an ass when I was young and confused. Not going there again

Owned by Remi #?

[GTAVercetti 0]

So calling them queers (and I don't care if they call themselves that -- when they do, it is usually not in the obvious tone you meant it) and then saying the guy with the hatchet might have a point, is okay because you were wronged by a gay person in the past? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

This is not one person whom you are venting frustration about. It is an entire group. And besides, were it one person I STILL wouldn't phrase it how you did.

If that person had wronged me and then someone took a hatchet to them, I am FAIRLY certain that I would not say, "well, their killer probably had a point." Particularly if it was simply a difference of philosophy and name calling instead of something that ACTUALLY has a harmful effect on my life (ie. hurting a family member or me).

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Airman1270 0]

...Could you enlighten us all to what sort of special rights they want... I keep getting confused by this whole militant homosexual agenda...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The most blatant example is their attempts to redefine marriage. In addition, they have demonstrated an attitude of entitlement regarding jobs, housing, etc.

If I want a job or an apartment, I can't just have it. The boss might decide not to hire me; the landlord might choose not to rent to me. This is their right. However, if a gay dude is refused, the case can end up in court with editorial writers across the county portraying the landlord, company, etc. as a bigot.

There was a case in Georgia in the mid-90's in which a woman applied for a job with the state attorney general's office. During the interview procedure she volunteered that she was a lesbian. (Nobody asked.)
The A.G. decided not to hire her. Not because of her queerness, but because she had demonstrated poor judgement and an in-your-face attitude. She sued. The case went on for months, with political activists portraying the A.G. as a bigot and smearing him personally by exposing imperfections in his own life which were irrelevant to the case. He eventually won, but the point was made: If a homosexual wants it, you had better provide it or you'll end up in court.

In 1997 I had a letter published in the Atlanta newspaper in which I stated that gays deserve to be treated just like everybody else. I received a death threat in the mail, complete with the little rainbow sticker, from some faggot who called me names and described how he'd kill me and my family. The letter was not mailed; there was no stamp or postmark. The guy went to the trouble of looking up my address and placing it in my mailbox personally.

All because I said he deserved the same rights I enjoyed, but no more.

I guess he was demonstrating "tolerance."

Queers,
Jon S.

[Airman1270 0]

...I am FAIRLY certain that I would not say, "well, their killer probably had a point."..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Of course not. I was just injecting some tougue-in-cheek humor into this discussion.

Jon

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Of course not. I was just injecting some tougue-in-cheek humor into this discussion.

Ah, forgive us for not seeing how wonderfully funny that was.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

...I am FAIRLY certain that I would not say, "well, their killer probably had a point."..
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Of course not. I was just injecting some tougue-in-cheek humor into this discussion.

Jon

I wouldn't go to open mike night with that.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.