<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: General Pace Takes Parting Shot</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/</link>
	<description>"Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right"</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:09:38 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bob Kent</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-22268</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Kent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:06:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-22268</guid>
		<description>Liberals say they want to save people from AID&#039;s but they have no problem with people having anal sex and will defend the act. If liberals love homosexuals they would tell them to stop but they won&#039;t. They would rather use it as a political football even if people die from AID&#039;s. Liberals are void of logic. This is just one example. They also have a problem with logical progression and outcomes. 

I know AID’s is spread not just with homosexuals but lets start with the most at risk group.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Liberals say they want to save people from AID&#8217;s but they have no problem with people having anal sex and will defend the act. If liberals love homosexuals they would tell them to stop but they won&#8217;t. They would rather use it as a political football even if people die from AID&#8217;s. Liberals are void of logic. This is just one example. They also have a problem with logical progression and outcomes. </p>
<p>I know AID’s is spread not just with homosexuals but lets start with the most at risk group.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-21975</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-21975</guid>
		<description>On one point you are correct, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not forbid single people from having sex.  However, at the end of his testimony, Gen. Pace indicated that sex between unmarried people is prohibited by the UCMJ.  Perhaps that is what Harkin was saying needs to be changed.

But before we go any further, let&#039;s be clear what the Military Law says.  UCMJ states &quot;Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.&quot;

So any military service member, straight or gay, would be guilty of sodomy if they engaged in oral sex or anal sex. They might also be guilty if they enagaged in sex in any position other than the missionary position.  In order for the law to be applied fairly, any person who engaged in one of those acts must be discharged.  In addition, any person who talked about engaging in those activities would need to be discharged as well.  Because gay and lesbian soldiers are discharged for acknowledging that they are gay, no sexual act is necessary.

But I want to go back to the reasons you were applauding Gen Pace.  You applauded his stance based on his morality and his religious teaching.  If this is to be the basis on which we decide military law, ie don&#039;t repeal don&#039;t ask, don&#039;t tell, then intellectual honesty would demand that all of the activities Gen Pace finds immoral must be made illegal.

You are familiar with intellectual honesty, aren&#039;t you? 

As for your refences to Rep. Foley and Sen Craig, I astonished that you would compare uniformed soldier whose lives are at risk every day defending our country to a congressman who preyed on pages or a senator who illegally solicited sex in a public men&#039;s room.  The reference is especially despicable in a time of war.

Perhaps i shouldn&#039;t be surprised considering the fact that you clearly express the belief that two adults of the same gender engaging in sex, is bigger issue in our society than murder.

In closing let me ask you a question.  Who would Jesus murder(WWJM) ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On one point you are correct, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not forbid single people from having sex.  However, at the end of his testimony, Gen. Pace indicated that sex between unmarried people is prohibited by the UCMJ.  Perhaps that is what Harkin was saying needs to be changed.</p>
<p>But before we go any further, let&#8217;s be clear what the Military Law says.  UCMJ states &#8220;Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.&#8221;</p>
<p>So any military service member, straight or gay, would be guilty of sodomy if they engaged in oral sex or anal sex. They might also be guilty if they enagaged in sex in any position other than the missionary position.  In order for the law to be applied fairly, any person who engaged in one of those acts must be discharged.  In addition, any person who talked about engaging in those activities would need to be discharged as well.  Because gay and lesbian soldiers are discharged for acknowledging that they are gay, no sexual act is necessary.</p>
<p>But I want to go back to the reasons you were applauding Gen Pace.  You applauded his stance based on his morality and his religious teaching.  If this is to be the basis on which we decide military law, ie don&#8217;t repeal don&#8217;t ask, don&#8217;t tell, then intellectual honesty would demand that all of the activities Gen Pace finds immoral must be made illegal.</p>
<p>You are familiar with intellectual honesty, aren&#8217;t you? </p>
<p>As for your refences to Rep. Foley and Sen Craig, I astonished that you would compare uniformed soldier whose lives are at risk every day defending our country to a congressman who preyed on pages or a senator who illegally solicited sex in a public men&#8217;s room.  The reference is especially despicable in a time of war.</p>
<p>Perhaps i shouldn&#8217;t be surprised considering the fact that you clearly express the belief that two adults of the same gender engaging in sex, is bigger issue in our society than murder.</p>
<p>In closing let me ask you a question.  Who would Jesus murder(WWJM) ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Strike a Blow for Conservativism Midweek Open Trackbacks &#124; Adam's Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-21943</link>
		<dc:creator>Strike a Blow for Conservativism Midweek Open Trackbacks &#124; Adam's Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-21943</guid>
		<description>[...] by Big Dogs WeblogGeneral Pace Takes Parting [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] by Big Dogs WeblogGeneral Pace Takes Parting [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rosemary's Thoughts</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-21907</link>
		<dc:creator>Rosemary's Thoughts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 03:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-21907</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;My contribution to Stop the ACLU...&lt;/strong&gt;

I would just like to add just one thing. THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT GIVE US OUR RIGHTS. GOD DID. For if the government had indeed given us our rights, then they surely could take them away, no?...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>My contribution to Stop the ACLU&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>I would just like to add just one thing. THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT GIVE US OUR RIGHTS. GOD DID. For if the government had indeed given us our rights, then they surely could take them away, no?&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blog @ MoreWhat.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; MoreWhat Matters: Today&#8217;s Blog List</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-21889</link>
		<dc:creator>Blog @ MoreWhat.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; MoreWhat Matters: Today&#8217;s Blog List</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-21889</guid>
		<description>[...] Big Dogs Weblog General Pace Takes Parting Shot… [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Big Dogs Weblog General Pace Takes Parting Shot… [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Big Dog</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-21887</link>
		<dc:creator>Big Dog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:44:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-21887</guid>
		<description>Jerry,
It is not a matter of what the laws will now be based upon, they are and have been this way for a long time.  There is no law in the military (that I am aware of) that forbids single people from having sex.  There is a law against homosexuals openly serving and adultery.

Harkin stood up for no one, he merely demonstrated that he can pander.  Where was Harkin standing up for Foley&#039;s right to have make sexually suggestive comments to pages or Craig&#039;s right to tap his feet in the bathroom?

The fact is, Pace has an opinion and it happens to be supported by the law.  Harkin does not like the law so he will change it and further erode the moral fabric of this society.

It is amazing that people will defend this kind of thing and then pitch a hissy fit when a soldier is accused of a murder or treats some terrorist badly.  Then all of the sudden people have moral values.  How can we expect our troops or our children to have morals when we as a society continue to fight to get rid of all that is decent?
 
Pace did not change his mind and he was not bullied into another opinion.  I wonder how Harkin will do if a huge group of people threaten to vote him out for a position he has taken?  He will change it, of course.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jerry,<br />
It is not a matter of what the laws will now be based upon, they are and have been this way for a long time.  There is no law in the military (that I am aware of) that forbids single people from having sex.  There is a law against homosexuals openly serving and adultery.</p>
<p>Harkin stood up for no one, he merely demonstrated that he can pander.  Where was Harkin standing up for Foley&#8217;s right to have make sexually suggestive comments to pages or Craig&#8217;s right to tap his feet in the bathroom?</p>
<p>The fact is, Pace has an opinion and it happens to be supported by the law.  Harkin does not like the law so he will change it and further erode the moral fabric of this society.</p>
<p>It is amazing that people will defend this kind of thing and then pitch a hissy fit when a soldier is accused of a murder or treats some terrorist badly.  Then all of the sudden people have moral values.  How can we expect our troops or our children to have morals when we as a society continue to fight to get rid of all that is decent?</p>
<p>Pace did not change his mind and he was not bullied into another opinion.  I wonder how Harkin will do if a huge group of people threaten to vote him out for a position he has taken?  He will change it, of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-21872</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-21872</guid>
		<description>So if our laws in the military will now be based on what is moral from a religious stand point, then even unmarried heterosexual person who engages in sex should be discharged, because they are fornicating and the Chrisitian religion categorizes that as an immoral act.

You show such contempt for Harkin for standing up for all people and praise Pace for standing by his religious teachings.  That&#039;s fine.  But at least be intellectually honest and apply that &quot;moral&quot; standard to everyone of our members of the armed services.

Lastly, by your standards having a religious objection to someone justifies personal and professional biogtry.  Since the Mormon church did not view blacks as full human beings until 1985, would a mormon have been justified in 1982 for being personally and professional bigoted towards black soldiers?

If religous belief justifies bigotry then why would they?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So if our laws in the military will now be based on what is moral from a religious stand point, then even unmarried heterosexual person who engages in sex should be discharged, because they are fornicating and the Chrisitian religion categorizes that as an immoral act.</p>
<p>You show such contempt for Harkin for standing up for all people and praise Pace for standing by his religious teachings.  That&#8217;s fine.  But at least be intellectually honest and apply that &#8220;moral&#8221; standard to everyone of our members of the armed services.</p>
<p>Lastly, by your standards having a religious objection to someone justifies personal and professional biogtry.  Since the Mormon church did not view blacks as full human beings until 1985, would a mormon have been justified in 1982 for being personally and professional bigoted towards black soldiers?</p>
<p>If religous belief justifies bigotry then why would they?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: the so called me</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-21864</link>
		<dc:creator>the so called me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:52:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-21864</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Republish Your First Post...&lt;/strong&gt;

Republish your first post and relive the memories!
......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Republish Your First Post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Republish your first post and relive the memories!<br />
&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leaning Straight Up</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-21841</link>
		<dc:creator>Leaning Straight Up</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-21841</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;MSNBC&#8217;s Shusters plays cruel game with dead soldier...&lt;/strong&gt;

There is still one question, and to my dismay, no one seems to be asking it.  It is: 

&quot;Did David Shuster and MSNBC give any thought to the family of  Private Bohannon, and what using him as a tool to play &#039;gotcha&#039; with a US Representative would d...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>MSNBC&#8217;s Shusters plays cruel game with dead soldier&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>There is still one question, and to my dismay, no one seems to be asking it.  It is: </p>
<p>&#8220;Did David Shuster and MSNBC give any thought to the family of  Private Bohannon, and what using him as a tool to play &#8216;gotcha&#8217; with a US Representative would d&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: irtexas44</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/comment-page-1/#comment-21836</link>
		<dc:creator>irtexas44</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/general-pace-takes-parting-shot/#comment-21836</guid>
		<description>Bravo Gen. Pace. Nuts to Harkin. I didn&#039;t hear this exchange but last week I heard another pompus a$$ Sessions in a hearing saying that the generals think they know what to do but that it was clear that congress knows more than they do and they need to be the ones calling the shots. 

It is just so amazing how really ignorant they are. And elite they think they are. I think they all have mental disorders.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bravo Gen. Pace. Nuts to Harkin. I didn&#8217;t hear this exchange but last week I heard another pompus a$$ Sessions in a hearing saying that the generals think they know what to do but that it was clear that congress knows more than they do and they need to be the ones calling the shots. </p>
<p>It is just so amazing how really ignorant they are. And elite they think they are. I think they all have mental disorders.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
