• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The scum in the ACLU have lost their battle against the BoyScouts.

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid19165.asp
In a 98-0 vote, the Senate approved the provision as part of massive bill setting Defense Department policy for next year. Senate majority leader Bill Frist, a former Boy Scout who sponsored the Senate provision, said it is necessary to push back on a spate of lawsuits to limit Boy Scout activities on government property. The provision adopted Tuesday says Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other national youth organizations. Frist said that the provision "removes any doubt that federal agencies may welcome Scouts to hold meetings, go camping on federal property, or hold scouting events and public forums" on government property.

In 1999 the ACLU of Illinois filed a lawsuit claiming that the Pentagon's sponsorship of such Boy Scout activities violates the First Amendment. The ACLU argues that direct government sponsorship of the group amounts to discrimination. Civil liberties advocates have assailed the Boy Scouts organization because it bars openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God.
I would like to take this moment and say "Ha Ha you scum in the ACLU have lost,even the liberals in the white house told you to **** off" Although I speculate the liberals in the whitehouse only voted in favor of the boy scouts
to not lose voters.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jamesrage said:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid19165.asp


I would like to take this moment and say "Ha Ha you scum in the ACLU have lost,even the liberals in the white house told you to **** off" Although I speculate the liberals in the whitehouse only voted in favor of the boy scouts
to not lose voters.
The Bush Admin threatened to veto this bill so it was shelved. It'll have to be debated again in September.

Second, depending on the case, an addition to the federal code may not be enough. The Constitution trumps federal code.
 

ElGringo17

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The homosexuals are really, REALLY pissed that they have lost a place to go "cruise" little boys ever since the Supremes ruled that the BSA were entitled to exercise their rights of freedom of association, so since the parents of the boy scouts refuse to allow homosexuals to molest their children, the homosexual child molesters responded by trying to financially terrorize the BSA in an attempt to force them to turn over the little boys.

This is part of the Homosexual Agenda, to silence all opposition and make them submit:

The following was written by Michael Swift, a self-confessed "Gay Revolutionary," and appeared in the Gay Community News, Feb. 15-21, 1987.

THE GAY REVOLUTIONARY

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry ******, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less.

Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Bush Admin threatened to veto this bill so it was shelved. It'll have to be debated again in September.

Second, depending on the case, an addition to the federal code may not be enough. The Constitution trumps federal code.
You have a point,this could be nothing more than a lets pretend to kiss the voter's ass moment in politics.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Advocate said:
In a 98-0 vote, the Senate approved the provision as part of massive bill setting Defense Department policy for next year. Senate majority leader Bill Frist, a former Boy Scout who sponsored the Senate provision, said it is necessary to push back on a spate of lawsuits to limit Boy Scout activities on government property. The provision adopted Tuesday says Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other national youth organizations. Frist said that the provision "removes any doubt that federal agencies may welcome Scouts to hold meetings, go camping on federal property, or hold scouting events and public forums" on government property.

In 1999 the ACLU of Illinois filed a lawsuit claiming that the Pentagon's sponsorship of such Boy Scout activities violates the First Amendment. The ACLU argues that direct government sponsorship of the group amounts to discrimination. Civil liberties advocates have assailed the Boy Scouts organization because it bars openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God.
I'm not sure who's to blame for this, the article writer for the advocate or Frist but it doesn't seem to make sense. The 1999 law suit against the Pentagon wasn't the fact that the Boy Scouts were using the public land, it was the fact that the Pentagon was spending SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS to accomodate this private group. Since the Pentagon derives money from taxpayers, this is a conflict of interest since tax payers are then turning around to pay for a jamboree (of death).


Moreover, it seems that the tide is changing again:
But a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to stop. At issue: the Scouts' oath: "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country…"

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the case to court, saying that the Scouts' pledge of duty to God makes them a religious organization.

Unless the federal judge's ruling is overturned on appeal, the Scouts will be looking for a new place, and private funding, for their next jamboree.

Congress has made its opinion known on this subject. In his speech to the Scouts, the President noted that Congress has passed a resolution declaring that the Boy Scouts should have "equal access to public lands."
What I find amusing is this part:
The Scouts call that ridiculous. Boys Scouts of America spokesman Bob Bork stated, "Just look around. This is camping. This is fishing. This is archery. This is hiking. This is not religion."
I call BS, why else would they not include this then:
. . . To do my duty to God . . .
Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.
And then this:
Boy Scout Leader Kicked Out For Atheist Beliefs

Lambert's atheism was never a problem during his 10 years in the Scouting organization until he became an assistant Scout Master. At a training conference, he told other leaders of his beliefs, saying it is wrong to kick out kids who don't believe in a god.

"We don't define God," says Scout spokesman Mark Hunter, "but we ask that each of our leaders subscribe to that, our declaration of religious principles."
Idiots.
 

ElGringo17

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, Shumamort, I know you have previously self-identified as a male homosexual, so it would not surprise me if you hated the BSA's and the parents who were spending 50K a MONTH trying to protect their little boys from homosexual pedophiles suing to gain access to little boys in pup tents.

Thank goodness the Supremes stepped in to protect the civil rights of the BSA's that homosexual predators were trying to take away from heterosexuals, all under the cleverly scripted guise of "non-discrimination" so deviously created in the Homosexual Agenda.

Funny how it was not until the BSA's succeeded in defending themselves from attacks by homosexual pedophiles did homosexual pedophiles go on the rampage warpath against the BSA's along with intolerant hate groups like the ACLU.

After all, why would the Advocate, a homosexual extremist publication promoting sexual abnormality get involved with articles about the BSA unless they had some unseemly interest.....

Interesting timing.......
 
Last edited:

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
shuamort said:
I'm not sure who's to blame for this, the article writer for the advocate or Frist but it doesn't seem to make sense. The 1999 law suit against the Pentagon wasn't the fact that the Boy Scouts were using the public land, it was the fact that the Pentagon was spending SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS to accomodate this private group. Since the Pentagon derives money from taxpayers, this is a conflict of interest since tax payers are then turning around to pay for a jamboree (of death).


Moreover, it seems that the tide is changing again:


What I find amusing is this part:


I call BS, why else would they not include this then:
And then this:
Idiots.
Its nice to see how you prey on "Political Correctness", EX: are teachers not "Learning Facilitators", I rest my case! Also your promotion of "Athism" is just as amusing!
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
stsburns said:
Its nice to see how you prey on "Political Correctness", EX: are teachers not "Learning Facilitators", I rest my case! Also your promotion of "Athism" is just as amusing!
It'd be even more nice if you made sense. What on earth are you on about?
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
shuamort said:
It'd be even more nice if you made sense. What on earth are you on about?
I'm glad you lack the ability to understand things abstractly, so let me lead you by the hand on what I meant.
"We don't define God," says Scout spokesman Mark Hunter, "but we ask that each of our leaders subscribe to that, our declaration of religious principles."
You precided to say "Idiots", also your past comments all lead to how it is God based, and the banning of one idividual who was "Atheist". In which can be viewed as defending the "Atheism". Also it is common knowledge that the ACLU repeadely tries to remove the word "God" from being used anywhere, suggested by this propaganda flyer:http://www.debatepolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=359&stc=1&d=1123004626
That was what I meant, if you have any other questions, don't be affraid to respond! :mrgreen:
 

Attachments

Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
stsburns said:
You precided to say "Idiots",
I have no idea what the word "precided" means. If you meant preceded or presided, neither of those would really apply either. :confused:

stsburns said:
also your past comments all lead to how it is God based, and the banning of one idividual who was "Atheist". In which can be viewed as defending the "Atheism".
Thanks for the strawman, but it's not applicable in this instance. Atheism isn't even the crux of this debate, it's the BSA's insistence on being a private club with their private rules and then sticking their dirty paws in the public trough. The Boy Scouts of America v. Dale decision was them pushing this rally cry of being a private club. Fine. Be the private club. But when they want to take public funds, as is the case with $7M of public funds to hold their death jamboree, well, that's when they cross the line.

stsburns said:
Also it is common knowledge that the ACLU repeadely tries to remove the word "God" from being used anywhere, suggested by this propaganda flyer:
You're citing yourself as common knowledge? No. That just won't do. You are aware who starting this lawsuit against the Pentagon, right? A pastor.

Then there are other things like:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

or

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors

The State Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed two jurors from a jury pool, one for wearing Muslim religious clothing and another for having engaged in missionary activity.

"In this country, people have a right to express their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination by the government," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "Excluding people from jury pools based on their religious belief or expression violates the principles of freedom found in the Bill of Rights."
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The ACLU are scum.Instead of being called the American Civlil Liberties Union they should be called the Anti-Christian Liberal's Union.

A few token cases on the side of Christians means nothing when they are trying to wipe out any chritstian symbols from sight and side while allowing the America haters,pedophilers,and anything that is against the values of Christians and narmal Americans.
The ACLU have turned perversity into diversity and turned normal Americans into extreamist and fundalmentalist becasue they do not want to tolerate perversity,pedophilers,and other deviant lifestyles.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
shuamort said:
I have no idea what the word "precided" means. If you meant preceded or presided, neither of those would really apply either. :confused:


Thanks for the strawman, but it's not applicable in this instance. Atheism isn't even the crux of this debate, it's the BSA's insistence on being a private club with their private rules and then sticking their dirty paws in the public trough. The Boy Scouts of America v. Dale decision was them pushing this rally cry of being a private club. Fine. Be the private club. But when they want to take public funds, as is the case with $7M of public funds to hold their death jamboree, well, that's when they cross the line.


You're citing yourself as common knowledge? No. That just won't do. You are aware who starting this lawsuit against the Pentagon, right? A pastor.

Then there are other things like:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

or

ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors
Thank you for your response! "Preceding" just think of it as "Your response was...". Thank You for informing me, also I would like to state I do not cite myself I cite "Cafepress.com" because that is where I got the flyer. My deepest apologies! http://www.cafepress.com/cp/info/
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jamesrage said:
The ACLU are scum.Instead of being called the American Civlil Liberties Union they should be called the Anti-Christian Liberal's Union.
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
jamesrage said:
A few token cases on the side of Christians means nothing when they are trying to wipe out any chritstian symbols from sight and side
Really? Are they wiping out all xtian mythological symbols or just the ones on government property? Your hyperbole is tiresome.

jamesrage said:
while allowing the America haters,
What "America haters". It seems you're the one going against America and the Constitution and what it stands for.
jamesrage said:
pedophilers,
What "pedophilers" are you talking about that the ACLU is defending. Please show case and cite it.

jamesrage said:
and anything that is against the values of Christians and narmal Americans.
I'm not sure what "narmal" is. But since they've defending Christians and are doing that in this case right now, I don't see what your beef is. Especially if you're allegeding, as is the leader, that the Boy Scouts of America ISN'T a Christian organization. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

jamesrage said:
The ACLU have turned perversity into diversity and turned normal Americans into extreamist and fundalmentalist
Really, got a cite for that? Got proof that all of the crazy fundamental extremists should be blamed on the ACLU? Seriously, I'd LOVE to see it.

jamesrage said:
becasue they do not want to tolerate perversity,pedophilers,and other deviant lifestyles.
Yeah, tolerance is a real bitch. Unless it's tolerating fundamental extremists, eh?
 

ElGringo17

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Shuamort,

It is considered poor debate form to correct peoples spelling and typing, especially when you do not spell all your words correctly either.

allegeding
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jamesrage said:
Hmm, link didn't work.

jamesrage said:
I COMPLETELY agree with you there. Here was ACLU's rebuttal:
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations

August 31, 2000


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
 

faminedynasty

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
706
Reaction score
224
Location
Sacramento California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jamesrage said:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid19165.asp


I would like to take this moment and say "Ha Ha you scum in the ACLU have lost,even the liberals in the white house told you to **** off"
Wait... There are liberals in the white house? I thought they were reactionary extremist...fascist freaks or something.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't agree with some of the issues they have decided to take on, but I would rather have them, then not have them. I was especially angry about the tiny little cross they took of the government signatures in L.A. They didn't feel the need to remove the pegan God from the signatures, but that little cross the size of a dime could not stand. L.A means the city of angels, should we have changed the name of the city as well, sometimes they just fight silly battles, that's what bothers me.:roll:
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You won't, because liberals AREN'T ANTI AMERICAN! Are you so ****ing far gone that you can't comprehend that loving freedom does NOT MAKE YOU ANTI AMERICAN?
Does Ward Churchill ring a bell.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jamesrage said:
Does Ward Churchill ring a bell.
Some folks just claim to be liberal, because way back when, it was respected, and admired. These days, we have these angry, nasty, hateful people, and they claim to be liberals, they are not, they are just trying to steal that reputation from good hippies that really were about peace and love. Ward is a great example of one of those people, while stealing the liberal reputation, it seems he stole the reputation, and heritage of the Indians as well, what a piece of S**T.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jamesrage said:
Alright, I see an artist whose work is provocative and whose statement is that do to the current administration, America is going down the toilet.

I don't see it much different than this Worldnet.com article that also stated:

Bill Clinton is not only dragging the Republic into the cesspool of global governance . ... He is destroying the Democratic party, content to discard it like a used toilet tissue.

Same toilet, same sentiment, different president.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,334
Reaction score
16,228
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Some folks just claim to be liberal, because way back when, it was respected, and admired. These days, we have these angry, nasty, hateful people, and they claim to be liberals, they are not, they are just trying to steal that reputation from good hippies that really were about peace and love. Ward is a great example of one of those people, while stealing the liberal reputation, it seems he stole the reputation, and heritage of the Indians as well, what a piece of S**T.
Actually no Indian tribe has claimed Ward Churchill as a indian.
 
Top Bottom