IronMagLabs Osta Rx

          Follow Us on Facebook        Subscribe to us on YouTube        Follow Us on Twitter        IronMagLabs on Instagram        Sign Up for our Newsletter


The ACLU - Screwing people over since before you were born!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 59
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    The ACLU - Screwing people over since before you were born!






    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/jam....ap/index.html

    Okay, dig through all the sad things about the scout leaders deaths and what not. What just popped out to me is that the ACLU has sued to not let the scouts use military property anymore for their jamboree because they say the pledge of allegiance.

    Civil Liberties? What a bunch of fuggin dirtballs.

  2. #2
    Registered User


    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    12,542
    Rep Points
    15370977

    Just because of the God part right??
    I highly recommend all IronMagLabs supplements!
    www.ironmaglabs.com

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    I hate to be the first one to reply to myself, but I think its fitting they support NAMBLA.

    As stated, dirtballs.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Quote Originally Posted by ForemanRules
    Just because of the God part right??
    Yeah, who really cares about that? Its patriotic and a part of our country. If our country had been founded on Islam it'd still be a part of our countries history. Its not though... but regardless, those fools are a waste of good unclean air.

  5. #5
    Moderator
    MODERATOR
    Dale Mabry's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    15,572
    Rep Points
    242738373

    What's next, you can't drive on a federal highway if you've ever been to a church.
    If sense were common, everyone would have it.

    4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

    Check out my world famous Bob Loblaw's Law Blog at http://www.synergyhw.blogspot.com/...Just kidding, it's a health and wellness blog.

  6. #6
    Esprit de Corps
    ELITE MEMBER
    Witmaster's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    5,072
    Rep Points
    18685917

    Quote Originally Posted by Dale Mabry
    What's next, you can't drive on a federal highway if you've ever been to a church.
    No..... you just can't drive on a federal highway on your way to and from church.
    NEVER write a check with your mouth that you can't cash with your ASS!!

    I can run faster mad than you can scared

    "All right brain... I don't like you and you don't like me. So let's just do this and I'll get back to killing you with beer" ~ Homer Simpson

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Thats what irks me...

    I'm not really religious at all, but I dont see any reason why that should keep me from having respect for people that are religious or try to change things things that will end up having a negative impact on society just because I have different opinions. Er, that was a long and messy sentence. I'll live. Anyways, there is tradition in our nation... and we should have pride in that. There is also such a thing as doing what is right even though we dont necessarily agree with it.

    Am I religious? No. Do I still say the pledge of allegiance? Of course. And people that wont and make a big deal about it, stop being douche bags and lighten up a bit. Taking away a place for boy scouts to meet and have a good time

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    4,956
    Rep Points
    25470444

    aclu=liberals=homos
    Quote Originally Posted by ForemanRules
    I will not kill innocents.

  9. #9
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,179
    Rep Points
    2005773

    The ACLU can be blamed for much of the politically correct movement in today's society. They can also be blamed for much of the mess that has wrecked our public education system.
    Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity.

  10. #10
    Metrosexual
    ELITE MEMBER
    DOMS's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    In a van, down by the river...
    Posts
    32,686
    Rep Points
    1860097295

    The ACLU hasn't been a champion of the people for a very long time. Their goal used to be ensuring that all people received fair treatment from the government, now they're about opposing the government at all costs. No matter what is does to the common man.

    Oh, and for the record, it's "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion".


  11. #11
    Esprit de Corps
    ELITE MEMBER
    Witmaster's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    5,072
    Rep Points
    18685917

    Quote Originally Posted by topolo
    aclu=liberals=homos
    ACLU = American Criminal Lovers Union
    NEVER write a check with your mouth that you can't cash with your ASS!!

    I can run faster mad than you can scared

    "All right brain... I don't like you and you don't like me. So let's just do this and I'll get back to killing you with beer" ~ Homer Simpson

  12. #12
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    I hate to rain on this whiny wingnut tearfest parade, but this case isn't about the pledge of allegiance (like the one spoken in schools) at all. It's about a private organization receiving taxpayer support for their particular forced religious beliefs when no other private youth organization is receiving Pentagon funding. Boy Scouts are allowed to still meet on a military base in areas designated and open for other civilian groups.

    The Boy Scouts used their own membership oath as an excuse to not only exclude gays from leadership positions in the organization, but atheists as well. And when the Supreme Court upheld their right to restrict membership based on promotiing a particular religious belief, the Pentagon was spending between $6-8 million preparing the military base for each jamboree. The case is on appeal.

    The case is neither about the practice of religion, or the freedom to do so. In fact, one of the plaintiffs in the case is a Methodist minister.

    As for the NAMBLA reference, what an ironic comparison. One of the Boy Scouts' national directors recently pleaded guilty to receiving images of children having sex together over the internet. Naturally, he was a leading supporter of the ban on gay/atheist membership.

    There has also been enough speculation about the organization's commitment to their oath to cause both an FBI investigation and a grand jury inquiry. Apparently, troops in three states were intentionally inflating their membership numbers in order to qualify for larger donations and to show more inclusiveness of racial minorities. That matter came to attention when a former Eagle scout and volunteer discovered a list of members for one program in which about 20 had the same last name: Doe. In Atlanta, membership rolls reported 20,000 African-Americans, but there were claims the actual numbers were no more than 500.

  13. #13
    Moderator
    MODERATOR
    Dale Mabry's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    15,572
    Rep Points
    242738373

    My beard is scratchy, ain't it Canteen Boy.
    If sense were common, everyone would have it.

    4/2007-Current 75th Ranked most popular image 1 spot behind Prince's bulge...

    Check out my world famous Bob Loblaw's Law Blog at http://www.synergyhw.blogspot.com/...Just kidding, it's a health and wellness blog.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    I hate to rain on this whiny wingnut tearfest parade, but this case isn't about the pledge of allegiance (like the one spoken in schools) at all. It's about a private organization receiving taxpayer support for their particular forced religious beliefs when no other private youth organization is receiving Pentagon funding. Boy Scouts are allowed to still meet on a military base in areas designated and open for other civilian groups.
    Actually, I'm glad you're back... we've been missing out on having any wingnuts around these parts lately.

    There are plenty of cases where the government does things that support religions... for one allowing them to be non-profit, etc. As to receiving Pentagon funding... sure, as far as the military throwing a party for a bunch of kids, uh huh. Or is the military sending these kids home with paychecks now?

    The Boy Scouts used their own membership oath as an excuse to not only exclude gays from leadership positions in the organization, but atheists as well. And when the Supreme Court upheld their right to restrict membership based on promotiing a particular religious belief, the Pentagon was spending between $6-8 million preparing the military base for each jamboree. The case is on appeal.
    Whooptidoooo... the military and the government wastes money one all kinds of stupid shit. For one, giving mentally retarded kids their own teacher. Then giving them another teacher if they are deaf that can sign. Then having a main teacher over those teachers so that they can make sure it all works out all right. As to gays and athiests... I could really give a shit. An organization should be allowed to hold ideals and stick to them. I know that doesnt necessarily fit into your world where people shouldnt be allowed to have opinions unless they fit in with your own, but businesses and what not shouldn't be forced to to follow someones political agenda. I'd feel bad for the athiests, but we athiests have long shat on "intelligent design" people and "Christians" in the sciences for so long and pulled off our own list of attrocities that its about time we got it stuck to us.

    The case is neither about the practice of religion, or the freedom to do so. In fact, one of the plaintiffs in the case is a Methodist minister.
    So because someone is a minister they have to do what is right for the Church? Or do what it says in the bible? Hrmm, I believe you'd find this at odds with reality. I've known several guys that claimed to be Christian and believe in God, etc that went around attacking Christians. Of course most of those encountered were college professors.

    As for the NAMBLA reference, what an ironic comparison. One of the Boy Scouts' national directors recently pleaded guilty to receiving images of children having sex together over the internet. Naturally, he was a leading supporter of the ban on gay/atheist membership.
    Yeah, and every single boy scout should pay for that shouldnt he? Or perhaps like the minister reference made earlier, just because someone is attached to an organization does not necessarily mean they are doing whats best for it. As to the last, naturally of course.

    There has also been enough speculation about the organization's commitment to their oath to cause both an FBI investigation and a grand jury inquiry. Apparently, troops in three states were intentionally inflating their membership numbers in order to qualify for larger donations and to show more inclusiveness of racial minorities. That matter came to attention when a former Eagle scout and volunteer discovered a list of members for one program in which about 20 had the same last name: Doe. In Atlanta, membership rolls reported 20,000 African-Americans, but there were claims the actual numbers were no more than 500.
    Yeah, thats like 4 references you gave me there. Obviously all boy scouts and troop leaders are dirty rotten bastards and should burn in hell.

    So you dig up a little dirt to try and smear the boy scouts. Which isnt too out of question for you... because you'd much rather overlook the good the organization has done and focus on the few shitty occurences. Its what you've consistently done in the past, so I wouldnt expect any different now.

    Anyways, the point is that the military throwing the jamboree was good not only for the boy scouts, but for the military. It gives them PR, and on top of that it allows them to perhaps achieve those recruiting goals they have.

    If any other religion has an organization such as the boy scouts that trains young kids well, teaches them respect, and betters society, then they should receive a jamboree of their own on some military base. However, if you'd like to take that away because they dont agree completely with you on your subjective opinion about the treatment of gays and athiests... then perhaps you shouldnt be spending time here arguing with me, but rather crusading around with a rope and pitch fork lynching these cretins.

  15. #15
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,717
    Rep Points
    2113182165

    that's awfly big for a bed bug.

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  16. #16
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    Quote Originally Posted by Eggs
    Actually, I'm glad you're back... we've been missing out on having any wingnuts around these parts lately.

    Ahh...your mirror is broken?

    There are plenty of cases where the government does things that support religions... for one allowing them to be non-profit, etc. As to receiving Pentagon funding... sure, as far as the military throwing a party for a bunch of kids, uh huh. Or is the military sending these kids home with paychecks now?

    The cost this year is estimated to be $7.3 million - and that's from the Pentagon budget. We might like to purchase some body armor for our soldiers.



    Whooptidoooo... the military and the government wastes money one all kinds of stupid shit. For one, giving mentally retarded kids their own teacher. Then giving them another teacher if they are deaf that can sign. Then having a main teacher over those teachers so that they can make sure it all works out all right.

    And this has to do with what? Spending taxpayer money to support one religious belief over another (and a belief that is required for membership in a private organization), without extending that support for other religious/non-religious groups isn't quite the same thing now, is it?

    As to gays and athiests... I could really give a shit.

    Well, obviously you do.

    An organization should be allowed to hold ideals and stick to them.

    Um. . .that's what the Supreme Court said too. . even if those "ideals" involved restricting membership. That doesn't mean taxpayers are required to support their "ideals," particularly when the Scouts are having some difficulty believing in 'em themselves.

    I know that doesnt necessarily fit into your world where people shouldnt be allowed to have opinions unless they fit in with your own, but businesses and what not shouldn't be forced to to follow someones political agenda.

    Except yours, of course. Maybe if you tried to stick with figuring out your own twisted little world, you might have a credible observation here about the views of others.

    I'd feel bad for the athiests, but we athiests have long shat on "intelligent design" people and "Christians" in the sciences for so long and pulled off our own list of attrocities that its about time we got it stuck to us.

    Yep. . and I have some alien believer buds who think right along the same lines. . .oops. . . the "christians" didn't quite have that in mind in terms of "intelligent design" do they? But atheists likely represent a wide spectrum of spiritual beliefs - I'm sure some don't like the competition between their view of their own reflection and that of a supreme being.

    So because someone is a minister they have to do what is right for the Church? Or do what it says in the bible? Hrmm, I believe you'd find this at odds with reality. I've known several guys that claimed to be Christian and believe in God, etc that went around attacking Christians. Of course most of those encountered were college professors.

    Irrelevant. The court case wasn't about religion, but government endorsement and financing of a particular religious belief at the exclusion of other citizens. This country has different denominations because there isn't a universal interpretation of biblical scripture. Are you saying that the gays aren't christians, or that atheists don't have any spiritual beliefs? Perhaps the gay christians must just be the acceptable ones to attack by the "politically correct" christians.

    Yeah, and every single boy scout should pay for that shouldnt he?

    Isn't that exactly what the organization expects every gay/atheist American to do? Hey..I thought you wingnuts were all about not handing out "special rights."

    Or perhaps like the minister reference made earlier, just because someone is attached to an organization does not necessarily mean they are doing whats best for it.

    They should have realized to consult you first about the checklist of privileged citizens and when it is appropriate to label an entire group of people for the wrongdoings of one and let another group get a free pass.

    As to the last, naturally of course.

    You bet - in the Right Wing tradition of covering up their own vices. That solid commitment to personal responsibility, ya know. Where's "conservative" hero Neil Horsley when we need his little man-on-mule story about his life on a Georgia farm?



    Yeah, thats like 4 references you gave me there. Obviously all boy scouts and troop leaders are dirty rotten bastards and should burn in hell.

    Hmm..let's substitute some other group for the Boy Scouts in that statement, and see if anything sounds familiar. 700 Club, anyone?


    So you dig up a little dirt to try and smear the boy scouts. Which isnt too out of question for you... because you'd much rather overlook the good the organization has done and focus on the few shitty occurences.

    You do enjoy playing fast and loose with the facts. I didn't dig anything up that wasn't already public record. How enlightening that it was a Boy Scout himself that brought out the allegations to the public. I didn't say I was overlooking the "good" the organization has done. . .I merely pointed out some glaring inconsistencies in relation to their own oath that led to federal investigations.

    Its what you've consistently done in the past, so I wouldnt expect any different now.

    I get it - we should leave it to you to have exclusive rights to cloud and distort information and present the appropriate moral viewpoints.

    Anyways, the point is that the military throwing the jamboree was good not only for the boy scouts, but for the military. It gives them PR, and on top of that it allows them to perhaps achieve those recruiting goals they have.

    Um...they can get the same PR from throwing things for lots of national youth groups. In fact, the U.S. Senate made that same statement today. The key is that it is the same policy of other national youth groups. Not free tax money for special rights for the BSA. $7.3 million is a lot of money on PR for a special interest group.

    If any other religion has an organization such as the boy scouts that trains young kids well, teaches them respect, and betters society, then they should receive a jamboree of their own on some military base.

    That would be most community-based organizations for young people and there shouldn't be a requirement that any organization be affiliated with some religion. The United States isn't in the business of establishing religion.

    However, if you'd like to take that away because they dont agree completely with you on your subjective opinion about the treatment of gays and athiests... then perhaps you shouldnt be spending time here arguing with me, but rather crusading around with a rope and pitch fork lynching these cretins.

    Nobody said it should be taken away. What the case was about is the extended use of military bases off limits to other parts of the public and the taxpayer cost for the events, particularly when the military does not accommodate any other youth group in a similar manner and is not supposed to be endorsing a particular religious viewpoint

    I also didn't really state much of an opinion on the matter in the previous post. . .just attempting to provide more information on the story.

  17. #17
    Windy City
    ELITE MEMBER
    Big Smoothy's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South America
    Posts
    5,540
    Rep Points
    226572212

    Quote Originally Posted by topolo
    aclu=liberals=homos
    I know a good number a conservative, neo-conservative, and Libetarians that have started supporting the ACLU morally, because of all of the right and civil liberties that Federal Government has taken away, recently.


    Becareful what labels and stereoptypes you apply in this day and age.
    It's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt We've stopped spending money that we don't have.

    -- Jack Lew, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, in Feb. 16, 2011 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Ahh...your mirror is broken?
    Nah, I got it fixed recently, but thanks for asking. It could be a good idea to not pinch the pennies and just view getting yours fixed as a worthwhile investment

    The cost this year is estimated to be $7.3 million - and that's from the Pentagon budget. We might like to purchase some body armor for our soldiers.
    The Pentagon isnt hurting for money really. As to body armor, most individuals I've ever spoken too havent had a problem with that. If there is a problem, its that their chain of command has some ass hole in it thats trying to prove to his boss that he can save a few pennies and screws his guys over. At least, in my time in the military there was more body armor for my guys than we even needed. Even after 9/11 when we pretty much tripled up our security forces we werent having too much of a problem. As to the armored vehicles, that was mostly a stupid bit of misinformation from what I've heard from friends over there. The stuff that wasnt up armored was the humvees they kept on base to haul stuff around in. Once they are armored they just arent as practical for dragging crap around base. Some did make it off the bases, but not many. Er, anyways. $7.3 million isnt actually that much of an investment compared to the money that gets blown in the military. I think in view of the PR and keeping a solid relationship with the scouts it is a minute amount in fact.

    And this has to do with what? Spending taxpayer money to support one religious belief over another (and a belief that is required for membership in a private organization), without extending that support for other religious/non-religious groups isn't quite the same thing now, is it?
    What other religions have huge groups like the boy scouts? However, if they do in fact have a sizeable number then it doesn't offend me at all if the government allows the stuff like the boy scout jamboree. Of course, I do know that there are Christian kids clubs with millions of members that aren't afforded that opportunity. Its hardly a "christian" thing. The boy scouts are a historical part of our country. It offends me that people want to try and cut them off at every turn because of certain beliefs that they hold. We as Americans dont have much respect for our history I think, especially if there is any sort of Christianity involved. If the members were Wiccans though perhaps everyone would think it more tolerable.

    Um. . .that's what the Supreme Court said too. . even if those "ideals" involved restricting membership. That doesn't mean taxpayers are required to support their "ideals," particularly when the Scouts are having some difficulty believing in 'em themselves.
    Yep, the Supreme Court did say that didnt they. Most of what taxpayers do is support ideals. I for instance hate getting taxed to pay someone that cant or is too lazy to get a job. However, because someone else thinks it is "right" I have to be tigher on my own budget to pay for their sorry ass. So, being that I'm paying out the ass for every other little stupid thing people want the government to do, I might as well throw a few pennies towards a boy scouts jamboree

    As to the last part, once again you're attacking the scouts. You dont give up an opportunity to slam them when the chance presents itself.

    Irrelevant. The court case wasn't about religion, but government endorsement and financing of a particular religious belief at the exclusion of other citizens. This country has different denominations because there isn't a universal interpretation of biblical scripture. Are you saying that the gays aren't christians, or that atheists don't have any spiritual beliefs? Perhaps the gay christians must just be the acceptable ones to attack by the "politically correct" christians.
    Not irrelevant at all. You said he was a minister, and I merely pointed out that being a minister does not mean that one believes in anything Christian at all. I could as a matter of fact go get a degree in Theology or whatever and become a pastor. Would that mean that I believe in what I'm doing? Or that my motives would be true to Christianity? Hardly. My motives would undoubtedly be true to myself, and thats it. Just as such a minister is. As to gays and what not... well, I do think its difficult to present oneself as both a Christian and a gay, so no I'm not sure if you can be a Christian and gay. On the other hand, we can believe something and do stuff that doesnt click with that. So anyways, I'm going to refrain from saying whether gays can be Christian. Thats their business. As to atheists having spiritual beliefs, well hrmmm. Could you perhaps explain that more? Like if I was an atheist could I believe in the Hindu gods? Or being pagan and believes in natures power of godhood? Well, according to the dictionary, an atheist is: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." I think its rather funny that a person would go so far as to say there are not Gods, and yet still believe in a spiritual essence in life. I wouldnt mind exploring this further in fact though, to you, how would you remedy the gulf that exists between atheism and the spiritual?

    They should have realized to consult you first about the checklist of privileged citizens and when it is appropriate to label an entire group of people for the wrongdoings of one and let another group get a free pass.
    I'm not sure what you're talking about here? Please explain further. What entire group am I labeling for the wrong doings of one? I'm certainly saying the boy scouts should have a free pass. But I'm also saying that any decent group should be given the same right if they are a serious entity in our country. Especially if they have a historical significance to us.

    In fact, if the ACLU spent some of that time and put together a group that took kids and tried to have a positive impact on their lives, I wouldnt be opposed to them throwing a party on some military base. If it was a significant group of course, way too many small ones to start that up with, might as well turn the military into a day care right?

    Except yours, of course. Maybe if you tried to stick with figuring out your own twisted little world, you might have a credible observation here about the views of others.


    Yep. . and I have some alien believer buds who think right along the same lines. . .oops. . . the "christians" didn't quite have that in mind in terms of "intelligent design" do they? But atheists likely represent a wide spectrum of spiritual beliefs - I'm sure some don't like the competition between their view of their own reflection and that of a supreme being.
    Actually, since you mentioned it, some do Religious people are all a bit strange in my book though. Regardless, I can still show them respect and not try to dick them over every time I get a chance. Haha, to a true atheist the supreme being is numero uno. Which I guess is me.

    Isn't that exactly what the organization expects every gay/atheist American to do? Hey..I thought you wingnuts were all about not handing out "special rights."
    Thats the funny part, they do. Just like gay/atheist organizations expect to get not for profit status and not pay taxes, or for atheists to get money to academically support their beliefs via research, or whatever else. As stated before, I really dont have a problem with those grops getting the same rights. IMO the ACLUs time would be better spent trying to get those rights for everyone, instead of taking them away from everyone. That is the case with much of what the ACLU does isnt it? To take those rights away from specific groups rather than ensure that all groups have the same access?

    You bet - in the Right Wing tradition of covering up their own vices. That solid commitment to personal responsibility, ya know. Where's "conservative" hero Neil Horsley when we need his little man-on-mule story about his life on a Georgia farm?
    Of course last I checked the left wing had their own share of vices. That isnt limited to any group.

    You do enjoy playing fast and loose with the facts. I didn't dig anything up that wasn't already public record. How enlightening that it was a Boy Scout himself that brought out the allegations to the public. I didn't say I was overlooking the "good" the organization has done. . .I merely pointed out some glaring inconsistencies in relation to their own oath that led to federal investigations.
    Basically which one could call digging up. The fact of the matter is that you've tried repeatedly to throw mud on the boy scouts, and have not in any way pointed out any positives. Which, believe it or not, there have been many.

    See, I am throwing mud on the ACLU, which was my whole goal of posting this. I can freely admit to that. The ACLU has done some good stuff (less and less it seems unfortunately), and that I admit. In the same way, you have definitely overlooked the good in the boy scouts and have only brought up the negatives about them. Lets both realize what we are doing though.

    I get it - we should leave it to you to have exclusive rights to cloud and distort information and present the appropriate moral viewpoints.
    Nah, you get to beat your pulpit here on a regular basis, so I dont think I'm the only one with exclusive rights to distorting information

    Um...they can get the same PR from throwing things for lots of national youth groups. In fact, the U.S. Senate made that same statement today. The key is that it is the same policy of other national youth groups. Not free tax money for special rights for the BSA. $7.3 million is a lot of money on PR for a special interest group.
    So whats the problem then? Regardless, as stated previously, considering the size I dont think it is an extravagant amount to spend on PR. Look at who it filters down to and the sheer numbers involved.

    That would be most community-based organizations for young people and there shouldn't be a requirement that any organization be affiliated with some religion. The United States isn't in the business of establishing religion.
    There shouldnt be, but my statement was in regards to you saying that its not right for the government to be pushing any specific religion. You're right, it shouldnt be. Any religious or non-religious entity should be afforded the same rights. Of course with given size limits as said before. It could easily get rediculous if any size groups were allowed that. The government isnt, and shouldnt be in the business of establishing religion. That said, it also shouldn't be in the business of discriminating against it.

    [QUOTE] Nobody said it should be taken away. What the case was about is the extended use of military bases off limits to other parts of the public and the taxpayer cost for the events, particularly when the military does not accommodate any other youth group in a similar manner and is not supposed to be endorsing a particular religious viewpoint. [QUOTE]

    But thats what this is about, taking it away. I'd much rather it was opened up more frequently than taken away from all. Whether or not the boy scouts have aspects to them that are anti-gay or atheist... they do more right than wrong, and this is an opportunity for the American people and the government in particular to sponsor something that has a positive and fun impact on these kids lives. I wish it were afforded to more kids really, and in time perhaps it will. Lets not take it away because the kids say the pledge of allegiance.

    I also didn't really state much of an opinion on the matter in the previous post. . .just attempting to provide more information on the story.
    Both of us push our opinions, thats the way of things. As to providing information, that can easily be subjective, if we only provide information that backs our own point of view. Which we undoubtedly do. In reality, we both presented information that was one sided. I presented that which pointed out only the negatives of the ACLU, and you with information that is negative about the boy scouts. Anyways, I still stand with my original statement that shutting down the jamboree is the wrong way to handle this matter.

  19. #19
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    [QUOTE=Eggs]


    Er, anyways. $7.3 million isnt actually that much of an investment compared to the money that gets blown in the military. I think in view of the PR and keeping a solid relationship with the scouts it is a minute amount in fact.

    Providing for the common defense isn't about endorsing particular religious beliefs.


    What other religions have huge groups like the boy scouts? However, if they do in fact have a sizeable number then it doesn't offend me at all if the government allows the stuff like the boy scout jamboree. Of course, I do know that there are Christian kids clubs with millions of members that aren't afforded that opportunity. Its hardly a "christian" thing. The boy scouts are a historical part of our country. It offends me that people want to try and cut them off at every turn because of certain beliefs that they hold. We as Americans dont have much respect for our history I think, especially if there is any sort of Christianity involved. If the members were Wiccans though perhaps everyone would think it more tolerable.

    The Boy Scouts are a private organization that claims it isn't aligned with any particular religious denomination. Yet it uses someone's contrived religious doctrine interpretation specifically to exclude certain groups of people. Merely claiming "christian" because of the mention of "God" doesn't make it automatically a religious group -requiring allegiance based on that doctrine, and especially excluding people because their existence is automatically interpreted as not being "christian' is where it becomes a problem. As for a "historical" part of our country, this isn't a club established by the government back in 1783 and the only issue with their beliefs involves the contradictory interpretations and practices of their oath. Americans don't have respect for lots of aspects of our history, including learning how not to repeat past mistakes - it's hardly limited to random claims of christianity used as an excuse to persecute. By the way, if the members were Wiccans, they'd never get onto the base - a federal court in Virginia wouldn't allow a Wiccan to give a prayer opening a city board meeting recently because she wasn't considered of the proper religious persuasion. Christians open the meetings up all the time with a prayer-as guests, of course. This fits into good patriotic Pat Robertson's contention that members of unacceptable religious groups should be prohibited from holding public office. Who decides what is unacceptable? Well good ole Pat, of course.



    Yep, the Supreme Court did say that didnt they. Most of what taxpayers do is support ideals. I for instance hate getting taxed to pay someone that cant or is too lazy to get a job. However, because someone else thinks it is "right" I have to be tigher on my own budget to pay for their sorry ass. So, being that I'm paying out the ass for every other little stupid thing people want the government to do, I might as well throw a few pennies towards a boy scouts jamboree

    What the Supreme Court doesn't do is spend taxpayer's money supporting private organizations that may be considered indoctrinating people in particular religious beliefs. It's called the establishment clause.

    As to the last part, once again you're attacking the scouts. You dont give up an opportunity to slam them when the chance presents itself.

    Nonsense. The Scouts slammed themselves. It's called responsibility for actions.


    Not irrelevant at all. You said he was a minister, and I merely pointed out that being a minister does not mean that one believes in anything Christian at all. I could as a matter of fact go get a degree in Theology or whatever and become a pastor. Would that mean that I believe in what I'm doing? Or that my motives would be true to Christianity?

    Since we don't establish an official religion in this country, it reserves the right of individuals to worship according to their own consciences. Your approval is irrelevant.

    As to gays and what not... well, I do think its difficult to present oneself as both a Christian and a gay, so no I'm not sure if you can be a Christian and gay. On the other hand, we can believe something and do stuff that doesnt click with that. So anyways, I'm going to refrain from saying whether gays can be Christian. Thats their business.

    Exactly. It would be rather difficult for you, who is neither christian or gay, to have much basis for making a decision about their religious status. And I wager they feel the same about the leaders of the Boy Scouts, too.

    As to atheists having spiritual beliefs, well hrmmm. Could you perhaps explain that more? Like if I was an atheist could I believe in the Hindu gods? Or being pagan and believes in natures power of godhood? Well, according to the dictionary, an atheist is: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." I think its rather funny that a person would go so far as to say there are not Gods, and yet still believe in a spiritual essence in life. I wouldnt mind exploring this further in fact though, to you, how would you remedy the gulf that exists between atheism and the spiritual?

    I don't believe that anyone is required to believe in a god, or a set of gods, in order to be spiritual. The only "gulf" that exists is the one created by those who demand there must be an associated relationship between a defined object in order to hold spiritual beliefs.


    I'm not sure what you're talking about here? Please explain further. What entire group am I labeling for the wrong doings of one? I'm certainly saying the boy scouts should have a free pass. But I'm also saying that any decent group should be given the same right if they are a serious entity in our country. Especially if they have a historical significance to us.

    Well gee. . .the KKK has some historical significance to us as well. . .so we can overlook and not report such mundane historical reenactments like church and cross burnings and a lynching or two if it's all because it's a "decent" group of good "christians" who historically were just practicing their particular religious beliefs. The Boy Scouts didn't single out some gay scoutmaster who was a bad leader or wouldn't start a campfire without holding hands with the forest ranger - they singled out the entire group of people for no other reason than their existence. When such a policy is enacted, where did they earn the free pass from responsibility for their own hypocrisies simply because they do something nice for evangelical kids? It's interesting to note here that neither the YMCA nor the YWCA, despite the presence of "christian" in their names, requires a loyalty oath and openly excludes members for characteristics completely unrelated to the activities of the organization.


    In fact, if the ACLU spent some of that time and put together a group that took kids and tried to have a positive impact on their lives, I wouldnt be opposed to them throwing a party on some military base. If it was a significant group of course, way too many small ones to start that up with, might as well turn the military into a day care right?

    I would object to a parade of groups using the military base for camps, particularly because of the taxpayer expense. The Constitution provides for a military for a specific reason. And there's a difference in doing good community service work by providing space for a club meeting and providing $7.3 million dollars to subsidize an annual event for a private organization. [/B]

    Actually, since you mentioned it, some do Religious people are all a bit strange in my book though. Regardless, I can still show them respect and not try to dick them over every time I get a chance. Haha, to a true atheist the supreme being is numero uno. Which I guess is me.

    There's nothing wrong with respecting religions, unless they subscribe to such an absolutist doctrine that believes in the overthrow of representative govenrment and the establishment of a theocracy.



    Thats the funny part, they do. Just like gay/atheist organizations expect to get not for profit status and not pay taxes, or for atheists to get money to academically support their beliefs via research, or whatever else. As stated before, I really dont have a problem with those grops getting the same rights. IMO the ACLUs time would be better spent trying to get those rights for everyone, instead of taking them away from everyone. That is the case with much of what the ACLU does isnt it? To take those rights away from specific groups rather than ensure that all groups have the same access?


    The ACLU's contention in this case was that the taxpayer support and exclusive sponsorship of the Boy Scouts was in fact discriminatory and an endorsement of a particular religious belief. The military had no such arrangement, nor such extensive financial contributions to any other national youth group, including the Girl Scouts. The military isn't a private corporate entity.


    Of course last I checked the left wing had their own share of vices. That isnt limited to any group.

    Absolutely, but when one side pretends to hold the high ground on moralizing about the behaviors of others, it's always a good idea to make sure one's own yard is clean and they aren't covering up the same thing.


    Basically which one could call digging up. The fact of the matter is that you've tried repeatedly to throw mud on the boy scouts, and have not in any way pointed out any positives. Which, believe it or not, there have been many.

    It isn't really digging when reporting on a case that is still in progress or on a pending morals conviction involving the group in question.


    See, I am throwing mud on the ACLU, which was my whole goal of posting this. I can freely admit to that.

    Without providing any information about the case.

    The ACLU has done some good stuff (less and less it seems unfortunately), and that I admit. In the same way, you have definitely overlooked the good in the boy scouts and have only brought up the negatives about them. Lets both realize what we are doing though.

    I think you were already singing the Scout's praises - you didn't need me to harmonize.

    So whats the problem then? Regardless, as stated previously, considering the size I dont think it is an extravagant amount to spend on PR. Look at who it filters down to and the sheer numbers involved.

    These aren't the Junior Military Scouts. It's a private organization with a stated religious belief system that is in contradiction to stated military policy. For example, some soldiers decided to name one of the barrels of their tank in Iraq - and chose a biblical reference of "New Testament". Now, that might get some cheers in a Hollywood war movie, but in a nation full of Muslims that are already splintered and suspicious over religious differences (including christian), it's not a good idea for U.S. Marines to name the barrel of their tank after one of the books of the Bible. The USMC, along with the Navy Department, happens to agree and asserts this isn't policy.
    The Boy Scouts are not restricted in use of the military base. What the Senate did today in response to the court decision was to make it clear that other national youth groups should be allowed the same access, precisely the core of the ACLU lawsuit. Of course, I'm sure if some Wiccan group, or some gay youth group, decides to have a national campout at some base, conservatives will suddenly start singing a different tune.





    There shouldnt be, but my statement was in regards to you saying that its not right for the government to be pushing any specific religion. You're right, it shouldnt be. Any religious or non-religious entity should be afforded the same rights. Of course with given size limits as said before. It could easily get rediculous if any size groups were allowed that. The government isnt, and shouldnt be in the business of establishing religion. That said, it also shouldn't be in the business of discriminating against it.

    The discrimination is in providing special financial support and access to facilities to one group, with a particular religious belief, not afforded other civilian groups. It isn't discriminating to pull money not given to anyone else from one special interest group.

    [QUOTE] Nobody said it should be taken away. What the case was about is the extended use of military bases off limits to other parts of the public and the taxpayer cost for the events, particularly when the military does not accommodate any other youth group in a similar manner and is not supposed to be endorsing a particular religious viewpoint.

    But thats what this is about, taking it away. I'd much rather it was opened up more frequently than taken away from all. Whether or not the boy scouts have aspects to them that are anti-gay or atheist... they do more right than wrong, and this is an opportunity for the American people and the government in particular to sponsor something that has a positive and fun impact on these kids lives. I wish it were afforded to more kids really, and in time perhaps it will. Lets not take it away because the kids say the pledge of allegiance.

    It's not about taking it away - it was about special rights. Yes, if the government says the military is ONLY going to provide the BOY SCOUTS special access and several million dollars a year, then it should be taken away. At no point were the Scouts restricted from use of any facility that other private and public citizen groups can use on a military base.



    Both of us push our opinions, thats the way of things. As to providing information, that can easily be subjective, if we only provide information that backs our own point of view. Which we undoubtedly do. In reality, we both presented information that was one sided. I presented that which pointed out only the negatives of the ACLU, and you with information that is negative about the boy scouts. Anyways, I still stand with my original statement that shutting down the jamboree is the wrong way to handle this matter.
    Transcripts of legal proceedings are only subjected to what is ordered to be stricken from the record of the proceedings. You blamed the ACLU in this case without any information about the case.

  20. #20
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    26,862
    Rep Points
    804964429

    It's all irrelevant since the relevancy relies on the irrelevancy of all that should have been relevant before this irrelevant statement on the irrelevancy of relevancy versus irrelevancy. Which should be deemed relevant only if the irrelevant irony succeeded in being relevant in a future time.

    I've been watching too much Monty Python, Thank You and good eve.
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    You've really got to start using quotes... its a pain to copy and paste everything into here... and no more work that using bold

    Anyways, this conversation is getting too long and I've really got to study. So as I leave, I'll just post up the following link for the full of it. Conservative it is. Wrong, I'd say not.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/murdoc...0402270920.asp

  22. #22
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    The assumption here, of course, is that the Boy Scouts always provide moral guidance, and the claim is most likely because of its "religious" allegiances, an arguable point considering many of the issues they have encountered among their own righteous leadership.

    Of course, I kept waiting for the National Review to draw some links between NAMBLA and a large number of Catholic priests who don't have to be defended by the ACLU or anyone else, since they were quickly hidden and schlepped around to other churches and haven't had to stand any trial. But then, the Catholic Church historically is part of our culture and does such good works - so what's a billion bucks or so of settlements on the growing number of reports of child sexual abuse?

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    4,956
    Rep Points
    25470444

    i say again......homos
    Quote Originally Posted by ForemanRules
    I will not kill innocents.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Quote Originally Posted by kbm8795
    Of course, I kept waiting for the National Review to draw some links between NAMBLA and a large number of Catholic priests who don't have to be defended by the ACLU or anyone else, since they were quickly hidden and schlepped around to other churches and haven't had to stand any trial. But then, the Catholic Church historically is part of our culture and does such good works - so what's a billion bucks or so of settlements on the growing number of reports of child sexual abuse?
    Actually, if I do recall, there have been many priests that have been sued and what not. Even some that have received jail time, right? Has the ACLU stepped in to defend them? I'm actually interested in that, I'm not familiar with any such cases, but that of course does not mean that they dont exist.

    The ACLU does defend conservatives a few times a year (for PR I'm thinking).

    Hrmm, what is the ACLUs stance on the 2nd amendment? They are consistantly liberal in most of their approaches to the constitution, so do they liberally represent gun ownership without restrictions, or is their interpretation a bit less liberal in regards to that?

  25. #25
    Windy City
    ELITE MEMBER
    Big Smoothy's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South America
    Posts
    5,540
    Rep Points
    226572212

    We need the ACLU more than ever today.

    I am a Libertarian, and don't like azzhole orgs. like the fascist pig Boy Scouts.

    Good news that some of the Nazis got zapped in Virginia.


    Sounds good to me.....
    It's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt We've stopped spending money that we don't have.

    -- Jack Lew, then director of the Office of Management and Budget, in Feb. 16, 2011 testimony before the Senate Budget Committee.

  26. #26
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    26,862
    Rep Points
    804964429

    Quote Originally Posted by topolo
    i say again......homos
    No sorry none here, you may have better luck finding a boyfriend two forums down.
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER


    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    7,008
    Rep Points
    1675493

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Snafu
    We need the ACLU more than ever today.

    I am a Libertarian, and don't like azzhole orgs. like the fascist pig Boy Scouts.

    Good news that some of the Nazis got zapped in Virginia.


    Sounds good to me.....
    Why hasnt some 7 year old with an AK shot your ass yet?

  28. #28
    Founder of GOSB
    SUPER MODERATOR
    ZECH's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Down by the River
    Posts
    20,185
    Rep Points
    431147933

    Interesting thread. It still amazes me what the liberals complain about when they don't get what they want. Name one other organization that has done as much for children for as long as the Boy Scouts Of America has done. You can't do it. We need them more today than ever.




    Disclaimer: All health, fitness, diet, nutrition, anabolic steroid & supplement information posted here is intended for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended as a substitute for proper medical advice from a medical doctor. We do not condone the use of anabolic steroids (AAS), all information about AAS is for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you choose to use AAS it's your responsibility to know the laws of the country that you live in. Consult your physician or health care professional before performing any of the exercises, or following any diet, nutrition or supplement advice described on this website.

  29. #29
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023

    Quote Originally Posted by Eggs
    Actually, if I do recall, there have been many priests that have been sued and what not. Even some that have received jail time, right? Has the ACLU stepped in to defend them? I'm actually interested in that, I'm not familiar with any such cases, but that of course does not mean that they dont exist.

    I think the operative word in your statement here is "some." And since the coverups reach back over 50 years, it is rather obvious that many neither saw justice nor were they ever tried. The present Pope, as a cardinal, had his own level of involvement in silencing some complaints and not removing many of the accused from the Church. As for the idea that "many" have been sued, there's a difference between suing for monetary damages and criminal prosecution.

    The ACLU does defend conservatives a few times a year (for PR I'm thinking).

    Hrmm, what is the ACLUs stance on the 2nd amendment? They are consistantly liberal in most of their approaches to the constitution, so do they liberally represent gun ownership without restrictions, or is their interpretation a bit less liberal in regards to that?
    That all depends on your definition of "liberal" . . .rightwingers are rather notorious for overusing the term as an expression of anyone not embracing their total ideological directive of the day.

  30. #30
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,367
    Rep Points
    -12839023






    Quote Originally Posted by dg806
    Interesting thread. It still amazes me what the liberals complain about when they don't get what they want. Name one other organization that has done as much for children for as long as the Boy Scouts Of America has done. You can't do it. We need them more today than ever.
    I'd love to see the crime statistic profiles of former Scouts. Do they all grow up to be model heterosexual citizens and members of the proper evangelical churches and the correct political party?

    There are organizations that have been around longer and have been effective, including the YMCA and the YWCA. And it appears that the Boy Scouts' problems of declining membership aren't caused by the "liberals" but their own internal issues. The "liberals" didn't miscount their membership rolls or pad them with fake names in order to solicit higher donations. And it wasn't a "liberal" who was a national leader downloading images of sexual acts with children.

Similar Threads

  1. Enough screwing around, time to get my strength back
    By Stewart14 in forum Online Journals
    Replies: 374
    Last Post: 07-13-2010, 11:35 AM
  2. Help Chins screwing me up
    By roastchicken in forum Training
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-12-2009, 09:35 AM
  3. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-30-2007, 01:43 PM
  4. Are Dems screwing themselves?
    By HaRdWoRkInG in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 02-20-2007, 12:52 PM
  5. Screwing up the diet for the last few dayz
    By arbntmare in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-08-2002, 10:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
DISABLED END -->