Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on November 16, 2004, 07:01:39 pm
-
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-boyscouts16.html
Are the boy scouts actually considered a threat. I mean accordfing to the ACLU, anything that considers the word GOD in it is exclusionary. :wtf:
This is also another example of why Bush was elected. Believe it or not. Christians feel threatened.
-
yeah okay, this reminds me of that other lawsuit where someone didnt want their kid to say the pledge of allegiance (or something) because it involved God, which he didnt believe in.
-
Well, whilst I agree that this is sort of like shooting a puppy because you are 40,000 in debt. Why should the Boy Scouts be a 'God only' club. In doing so, it almost becomes a religious entity.
I know the founder would not approve of it. But then, I'm not sure how he'd feel about children being excluded either. :(
-
the government cannot give money to them because of that - it's the government maintaining NEUTRALITY
-
They allow them to use the facilities also. But I mean at this point it is getting ridiculous. I mean honestly. THE BOY SCOUTS DO NOT DESERVE THIS. They have always helped the needy, been there for people in the community, inspired values such as honor and dignity in young boys. What have they done wrong.
-
excluding people because of religion is wrong, and I as a swedish scout do not approve of that. I see the pentagons decision as just. they can get sponsoring from other sources, preferrably non-military ones.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I know the founder would not approve of it. But then, I'm not sure how he'd feel about children being excluded either. :(
I'm quite sure BP would disapprove. There's a difference between nurturing a christian view on morals and swearing an oath to said deity. Scouting is supposed to be for everyone, regardless of skin color, nationality, handicaps or religion.
-
the BSA makes you swear to a deity - that make it so they cannot receive government money since it makes them into a religious organization
all the scout troups i'e seen have been HIGHLY religiously exclusionatory
-
The oath states no specific diety.
I just find it disturbing that the boyscouts would be targeted.
I mean they[ACLU] are trying to be forced out of state parks, now off of military bases. Where will it end?
-
exactly; isn't it discriminatory to assume an unspecified deity is automatically the christian God?
-
the oath mentions A deity though
neutrality means no mention of diety/deities or lack thereof
where will it end? WHEN GOVERNMENT NEUTRALITY IS ENFORCED
The ALCU is just forcing the government to uphold the constitution - if the BSA doesn't like it they can stop being a god-club
-
Originally posted by icespeed
exactly; isn't it discriminatory to assume an unspecified deity is automatically the christian God?
A) it's understood to be the christian god (ie it's a very safe assumption)
B) IT doesn't matter if it's the christian god - it's A GOD and that's descriminatory against atheists/agnostics
-
Can I swear allegiance to the Blind Watchmaker or the Invisible Hand?
-
look this is just getting stupid, if you don't believe in God why can't you just hold a superior attitude towards those superstitious primitives who do instead of making a huge childish fuss about it?
-
It is the boyscouts, you think the ACLU would have more important things to do than sue over that fact that scout troups receive gov't money and use military facilities. I mean literally, how much money does it take....
What I am getting at is an itinerary at the ACLU, something sinister.
-
by the way, what's the point of ACLU? i mean what's their mission in life?
-
Originally posted by icespeed
look this is just getting stupid, if you don't believe in God why can't you just hold a superior attitude towards those superstitious primitives who do instead of making a huge childish fuss about it?
demanding that our rights are respected is a "huge childish fuss" apparently
-
Originally posted by icespeed
by the way, what's the point of ACLU? i mean what's their mission in life?
making sure the constitution is followed
-
Originally posted by redmenace
It is the boyscouts, you think the ACLU would have more important things to do...
false dilemma
-
That would make far too much sense, icespeed.
On a side note, why can't people just get a life? Well, at least it's not as bad as the guy who went through the entire Scouts program, then balked and made a fuss immediately before getting his Eagle rank...
-
Originally posted by Kazan
demanding that our rights are respected is a "huge childish fuss" apparently
it is. because if you were more mature about it, you wouldn't feel that your rights come from someone else's actions. you'd make your own rights.
-
*rolleyes*
obviously you don't understand what RIGHTS are -- go take some political science classes
government gives money to religious organization = violation of the establishment clause, violation of the rights of everyone not of the same sect of religion of the organization
-
insulting me isn't going to change the situation, you know. what needs distinguishing is the trivial and the important. boy scouts swearing to God? trivial. people being martyred for believing in God? important. as far as i know, american hasn't reached the second stage yet.
-
how about people being martyred/discriminated for _NOT_ believing in "God"? trivial, I guess?
and how much as it scares me to say, but I'm beginning to feel as if Kazan is actually one of the few people here with the right ideas (i.e. viewpoints I can agree on).
-
Am I in the minority for thinking that if something either doesn't directly affect you or affect you in any significant way, you shouldn't really pay much attention to it? People tend to get overly worked up about things that are in truth of little consequence.
-
okay, maybe i used the wrong words or something, so forgive me for not having a degree in diplomacy. but what i meant was what grey wolf just said.
-
Answer me this: Do the Boy Scouts support any one religion? No. By giving money, is the government supporting any one religion? No. I see absolutely no Establisment Clause violation here. (And yes, Kazan, I have taken an American Government course with a teacher who knew his stuff.) All I see is the ACLU pursuing yet another wacko lawsuit and further discrediting themselves.
-
generaly when I see ACLU and boyscouts in the same sentnece I know I'm going to probly see the ACLU going to far, but in this instance, it's a bit more grey, and I think they were in the right.
-
The argument is always that it doesn't support any one religion, but the assertion of "God" is, in and of itself, supporting a certain kind of belief.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
look this is just getting stupid, if you don't believe in God why can't you just hold a superior attitude towards those superstitious primitives who do instead of making a huge childish fuss about it?
That's an interesting argument...
If one believes in a God and believes they are morally superior to those "sinning" non-theists, then what reason is there to make a huge fuss about silly earthly issues? What reason is there to introduce homophobic legislation? Why is it necessary for science textbooks to put disclaimers about evolution?
-
Those would be we know as "retarded". Contrary to the beliefs of those who consider crazy all who believe that there is some sort of higher power, whether defined or no, that single belief doesn't make you do those stupid things. Those people would most likely be stupid no matter what they believed in.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
false dilemma
It wasn't so much a argument as an observation I have made about the ACLU being concerned with things that are of little or no consequence.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Can I swear allegiance to the Blind Watchmaker or the Invisible Hand?
Go for it!
When asked what my faith was said "god of rolling rocks down really big hills."
Because that is what I like to do. And I try to hit stuff.
*Is an Eagle Scout*
-
*Should turn in the paperwork for Eagle within 6 months*
-
gray wolf: yes you're in the minority - because that is foolish
icespeed: there is no such thing as a trivial violation of rights - a violation of rights is a violation of rights -- period
-
Mongoose: it doesn't have to be supporting any _ONE_ religion - it is supporting religion - which means government support to that organization is the government supporting religion
furthermore the god is understood to be the christian god anyway
remember: freedom of religion includes freedom from religion
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. or the free exercise thereof"
-
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
- The First Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America
In its entirty.
However, the congress has not made a law here have they. This is what bothers me about the judicial system. They read the constitution and say 1+3=7 due to some "legalese" jargon. Regaurdless if IT IS WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH. And yes the Supreme Court are "experts in the law," but guess what, experts can be wrong. In this situation, the boyscouts, congress has made NO LAW "respecting an establishment of religion. Or the free exercise thereof." The military, has provided a service for its service men and women and their families, that in some cases they would not be able to have otherwise such as in foreign coutries.
The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. --James Madison Commenting on the First Admendment
-
if the amendment was followed corectly then the funding should not have been alowed in the first place, what the courts have done is looked at the situation and realised this, funding for a religon centered organisation is not something the government sould be dealing out.
now on the other hand, much of the rest of the ACLU's atacks (the thing were they sued to get a gay scout leader in or the atheist egle scout thingy) have been crossing the line, the scouts have a right to set the rules of there private organiseation, but in so doing they must accept the consequences of being a religiously centered organiseation.
-
Why. So you are admiting that they practiced judicial activism? The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Congress has not been involved in this situation. If there should be a seperation of church and state, then it shouldn't be added to the constitution of written in by 9 old geezers on the bench. Congress should put forth an admendment establishing it.
now on the other hand, much of the rest of the ACLU's atacks (the thing were they sued to get a gay scout leader in or the atheist egle scout thingy) have been crossing the line, the scouts have a right to set the rules of there private organiseation, but in so doing they must accept the consequences of being a religiously centered organiseation.
Some people think that the ACLU has alterior motives. And this action in conjunction with the previous lawsuits are setting a pattern of behavior by them[the ACLU].
-
I was in the (UK) Boy Scouts as a young-un (Cubs, actually), and I don't remember having to do any religious-type-stuff such as swear an oath to God et al. So if it's indoctrination, it's not very effective....
I don't see any harm by funding what is basically a kids group. So long as people can choose what to swear to, and insert an aetheistic alternative if they wish, then I think it's fine. Someone asks me to swear to God, and I wouldn't. someone asks me to swear to something, then I'll slot in a nice arbitrary (and humourous) thing and be perfectly happy with it.
-
redmenace: the seperation of church and state is established by the 1st ammendment
people who whine "judicial activism" are only demonstrating one thing: They don't know what the **** they're talking about
oh yes.. the ACLU has such alterior motives... promoting civil liberties is such an alterior motive
the constitution is not written in "plain english" -- it's written in legalese
the establishment clause would not prohibit the military from providing chaplins - as long as they provide chaplins for any and all religions requested
-
ok we have a law that sais the government can't make any law that will have an effect on any religon. later we have some part of the government that does something that has an effect on religion. sence the congress it the part that makes laws and the first amendment is still in play if some part of the government does something that is specificly forbiden from being made into law then the only conclusion is that that part of the government was in error with the law.
-
yeah
-
I don't see how it is possible to get from A all the way to Z.
You only choose to see it as legelese. Secondly, those who want to rely on a damn letter written by Jefferson as proof need to realize he had nothing to do with the drafting of the 1st admendment. Additionally early drafts of the document suggest that it was refering to individual sects. The !st admendment specifically singles out the Congress. If it were meant for the entire Gov't it would have said so.
Do you really thing the ACLU has no other agenda present? I mean it is the BOY SCOUTS. They got on their cases before about gay scout leaders and tried to have them kicked off public lands. Now they are trying to do it again. It is really obvious.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
people who whine "judicial activism" are only demonstrating one thing: They don't know what the **** they're talking about
Oh, I don't know about that. (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/index.html?[url)
Originally posted by Kazan
oh yes.. the ACLU has such alterior motives... promoting civil liberties is such an alterior motive
Actually, in recent years anyway, they have done little to support civil rights unless it somehow attacks a religion, specifically a branch of Christianity. That would make it seem that they have a beef against Christianity and religion in general.
-
I'd imagine that, as it is by far the dominant religion, Christianity is going to be 'attacked' more often in order to curb the negative influence its size may have upon the minority religions. And, of course, given that Christianity is the primary religion, it's more than a bit more likely it'll come up in controversial laws than, say, Sikhism in the Us, isn't it?
-
yeah, they have become much more centered around atacking christianity than defending anything lately, I recall specificly an event there there were christmass decorations in a town along side an asortment of other holodays (like Chanukah and a bunch of others) and the christmass display was specificly singled out. they should have either gone after all of them, or preferably left them the hell alone, as all this sort of thing acomplishes is pissing of a majority of people.
-
Liberator: riight... i guess "supporting Rush Limbaugh's right to privacy" and "Supporting a republicans right to have a political sign in their yard" (it violated some building ordinance somehow) are
They're "after Christianity" because right now christianity is the only group trying to push themselves into government to dictate laws, policy, etc.
If someone actually passed a law that said "A child cannot pray in school" the ACLU would defend that child.
PS: A child can pray in school all they want - so long as it doesn't disrupt other individuals (being loud, etc). A teacher cannot lead students in prayer - because while at school they're a representative of the government: and do you want the government telling your children how to pray? [Hint: HELL NO, that's your job]
redmenace: you don't need jefferson's letter as proof - it only provides a succint term
they are going at the BSA from two sides - since they were getting government funding they went after the BSA, and then they went after the government funding - basically it's "Conform to government rules, or loose your funding!" and they made sure it's enforced
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Oh, I don't know about that. (http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/index.html?[url)
PS: That doesn't constitute a refutation
-
A few little snippets from the Boy Scouts, for anyone who has any doubts about it's spiritual requirements. These are from memory so, please, be merciful. I only had to say them about 10 thousand times.
The Scout Oath
--------------------
On my honor I will do my best
to do my duty to God and my country
To obey the Scout Law
To help other people at all times
To keep myself physically strong
mentally awake
and morally straight
The Scout Law
----------------------------
A Scout Is..
Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent
Now, Scouting does not say that you must be Christian. It doesn't 'specifically' say you cannot be an Atheist, but the implication is there nonetheless.
*Is Eagle Scout*
-
Originally posted by Kazan
PS: That doesn't constitute a refutation
.
It's better than some of the BS you shovel sometimes.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, they have become much more centered around atacking christianity than defending anything lately, I recall specificly an event there there were christmass decorations in a town along side an asortment of other holodays (like Chanukah and a bunch of others) and the christmass display was specificly singled out. they should have either gone after all of them, or preferably left them the hell alone, as all this sort of thing acomplishes is pissing of a majority of people.
:nod:
I do think that this sort of thing - banning Christmas displays, Hot Cross buns (UK thing) is excessive. Should encourage people to display their diversity, not suppress it.
My particular concerns regard the government & law rather than peoples expressions of their beliefs et al. So, in this particular example (scouts), funding the scouts is fine as they don't promote a particular belief*, however funding - for example - a travelling baptist group using God to promote abstinance would be wrong (as it is based on a specific religion and thus would discriminate against different religions or moral codes.... so you'd have to pull the funding or provide a variety of alternatives, such as travelling roadshows to educate on safe sex et al)
'God' may be implied as Christian, but it can be interpreted in a number of ways. IMO, it is used in a sufficiently vague way (specifically, 'my God'), that I don't think it is discriminatory in such a way as to require the removal of funding. Also; based on my UK experiences (which may be invalid), it;s not really an indoctrination organisation.
-
aldo_14: they do promot religion though, so the government cannot support them - or they violate MY RIGHTS
asshole :hopping: :lol:
-------------
Liberator: until you are capable of refuting A SINGLE THING i say you cannot call anything I say "bull****"
your debating skills are so bad that they're nonexistant
please spew some more counterfactuals so i can own you - i really liked it when you misquoted the 1st ammendment
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: they do promot religion though, so the government cannot support them - or they violate MY RIGHTS
asshole
Well, I was going to agree with your arguement in light of certain things I've read, but if you're going to act like a 12-year old, I don't see how i can. What i will say, is that I have checked up on certain things and would agree that there is a religious element in the America Boy Scouts that I didn't experience when I was (briefly) in the British equivalent.
But I don't want to be associated with your general attitude towards this whole area, because I'd prefer to give a more considered and concilatory view.
Of course, are there not aethistic / non-religious youth groups funded by the government? And if not, maybe you should have those rather than this particular course of action, because it's not going to achieve much (maybe the BS - nice initials BTW - will get funding from the church instead.....).
-
aldo_14: i should have tagged that "asshole" with a smilie.. i was being facetious... sorry
Of course, are there not aethistic / non-religious youth groups funded by the government?
not as far as i know
any group that promotes one religious position - whether it be christianity, islam, buddhism, atheism, etc should not receive government money
-
Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: i should have tagged that "asshole" with a smilie.. i was being facetious... sorry
ok, no worries.
Originally posted by Kazan
not as far as i know
any group that promotes one religious position - whether it be christianity, islam, buddhism, atheism, etc should not receive government money
Well, my preference is for an alternative rather than a removal. This part of the spcut code thingy, I disagree with;
[q]Religious Principle, Declaration of, (BSA)
The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no person can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, acknowledges the religious element in development of youth members, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious development. Its policy is that the organization or institution with which youth members are connected shall give definite attention to their religious life. Only adults willing to subscribe to this declaration of principle and the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership.[/q]
This appears to be an american thing, so I wasn;t aware of it. My brief experience of the (uk cub) scouts had absouletely no impact in religious terms... I don't even remember if there was any religious aspect of it.
If that above thing is strictly adhered to in the US scouts, then I think it is unfair and discriminatory. I'd encourage a revision or alternative to be provided if possible.... simply due to tradition, I guess there is a certain hesitance at 'cutting off' funding to such an old institution. On the other hand, there is the principle of it to regard.
(oh, and what the hell happened to my other reply, which was a lot less rushed? Damn thing just upped and left......)
EDIT; yep, definately think they should be either co-erced to be fair and undiscriminatory, or have funding cut. Certain principles to be upheld, after all
http://www.scouting.org/media/press/020206/index.html
-
The way I see it everyone is getting down on the ACLU for this saying that they are making mountains out of molehills etc.
Lets spin this around.
If the God thing is such a non issue why don't the Boy scouts simply drop the word God from there pledge? The whole thing would be over with the loss of a single line. On one hand they have the loss of millions in government support. On the other hand they have removing one line from their pledge. If this is really such a non issue why wasn't the word dropped? Surely lossing one sentence is worth avoiding all this trouble.
....Unless of course the God thing means more than the people who have called this trivial realise.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
If the God thing is such a non issue why don't the Boy scouts simply drop the word God from there pledge?
Tradition.
Also, the Boy Scouts are a private organization. They don't have to let anybody in if they don't want to. Like the Augusta Golf Club.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Tradition.
Also, the Boy Scouts are a private organization. They don't have to let anybody in if they don't want to. Like the Augusta Golf Club.
So why should they be government funded? Otherwise the government would be condoning exclusivity on the basis of religion, etc (in this case against aetheism and also on the basis of sexual orientation).
-
Why don't they change. Mainly because they see what the constitution says and don't see legalese bull ****.
-
redmenace: WRONG
they're a private organization - they don't have to change
but as long as they descriminate based upon religion they cannot be government funded
only naive theocratists argue against the establishment clause - it protects your asses as well as ours
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
1st you need to remember to quote the ENTIRE DAMN CLAUSE
Part of the people who started this country fled from religious persecution - undermining the establishment clause is perpetrating religious persecution!
-
Eh? Because...oh, sod it all:
(http://www.polaris.net/services/image-archive/animals/koala.jpg)
-
And why not?
(http://www.koala-screensavers.net/koala.JPG)
-
kazan:WRONG
The founding fathers fled because of a SECT, being that of the anglican church. I already established this earlier. READ MY POSTS. The purpose of the "establishment clause" is the prevention of any one religion or sect from overpowering or having the CONGRESS compell people to join.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR SKULL. I AM NOT A THEOCRAT. HOWEVER, I DON'T INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION THE WAY YOU DO. I don't have a problem with the 1st admendment, just the way it is interpreted.
"The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." --James Madison Commenting on the First Admendment
Part of the people who started this country fled from religious persecution - undermining the establishment clause is perpetrating religious persecution!
OH NO, those boyscout scum are commiting religous attrocities while on gov't property with gov't money. I had no idea that helping people in need was dangerous. BOY!
-
Originally posted by Liberator
(http://www.polaris.net/services/image-archive/animals/koala.jpg)
Actually did you know they are stoned 24/7?
-
Alright guys this is going over the top. :no:
-
The pissy debate between me and kazan(I am sure kazan has sent me several IMs about it at home.)
or
the koalas. But they're so cute.
Sorry about your parking ticket at Iowa State, parking services usually are money grabbing pain in the ass(usually private organizations)
-
listen here asshole redmenace
YOU'RE ADVOCATING THE SUPRESSION OF MY RIGHTS
SINCE IT'S OK FOR YOU TO VIOLATE MY RIGHTS HOW ABOUT I VIOLATE YOURS - I'LL COME DOWN THERE AND VIOLATE YOUR RIGHT TO BODILY INTEGRITY
ASSHOLE THEOCRATIC PIECE OF ****
-
Threatening physical violence never proves anything.
Therefore, you have just stepped over the line. This discussion is over.
-
You know Kazan it's moments like this that give liberals a bad name. :wtf: And you're infringing my chances of one day having the very right you speak of protected by making our case in such a arse up manner.
****it, bring on the Koalas.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
listen here asshole redmenace
YOU'RE ADVOCATING THE SUPRESSION OF MY RIGHTS
SINCE IT'S OK FOR YOU TO VIOLATE MY RIGHTS HOW ABOUT I VIOLATE YOURS - I'LL COME DOWN THERE AND VIOLATE YOUR RIGHT TO BODILY INTEGRITY
ASSHOLE THEOCRATIC PIECE OF ****
So in one thread you strive for a peaceful debate, and in another you go around yelling and insulting people.
You're a cunt.
-
this discussion is not over
Petrarch: Yes I'm the **** - i'm the one advocating peoples rights be violated
redmenace
i was making a point
you're just such an asshole that you don't understand the point
[size=24]JUSTIFY YOUR ADVOCATING THE VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS[/size]
-
Wow! All these years I've been thinking that reasonable arguments, evidence, and logic added some weight to what you say, when it's actually obnoxiously large letters that do it!
Well knock me down with a feather!
-
Petrarch: i've tried being reasonable, providing evidence and logic -
i've presented the unquestionable correct legal position
and yet redmenace still insists that he gets to violate my rights
-
Continueing to argue will only result in this thread being locked and one or both of us being banned.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Petrarch: i've tried being reasonable, providing evidence and logic -
i've presented the unquestionable correct legal position
and yet redmenace still insists that he gets to violate my rights
And being obnoxious will help in what way?
-
sure it will - run! run away from the responsibility of what you're advocating!
run away from the responsibility of advocating telling 1 in 10 americans that they're second class citizens and their rights don't have to be respected!
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Continueing to argue will only result in this thread being locked and one or both of us being banned.
Don't worry, it won't be you.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
And being obnoxious will help in what way?
by calming me down so i can resume reasoned discussion
i don't take lighty to being told that me alone with 1 in 10 americans are second class citizens and that our rights don't have to be respected
-
Originally posted by Kazan
by calming me down so i can resume reasoned discussion
Well take it out on something else, rather than making a twat of yourself here.
-
oh yes.. yelling at someone in anger when that person tells you that your rights don't have to be respected is being oh sooo much more a twat than the person advocating that my rights don't have to be respected
oh i bow down to the obviousness of rude statements being bigger twatitty than religious oppression!
-
I hate to imagine what you do when HLP is down, just build it up I suppose.
Perhaps if the board is down for a year, you'll burst.
How about it folks?
Anyway, back on topic, Koalas. Fugly, ain't they?
(http://7art-screensavers.com/screenshots/wild-animals/a-flock-of-koalas.jpg)
-
Redmenace and Kazan, until you two stop overreacting you are officially monkeys. Enjoy your hiatus from the HL forum. You can post anywhere else though, but if I see you continuing this behavior you will recieve a proper banning.
-
Nice one Shrike. :)
What's to stop Kazan using the Ferrium forum as his personal ranting ground, though?
-
Because he'll get banned. And you're a koala.
-
Cool, glad to finally lose Mike Hunt.
-
Or you could unleash you personal cute medical assistant on both of them :D
I'm sure that being sliced up by a cute medic with a scalpel would calm both of them :)
-
At the end of the day, I suppose there are no rights that a too small or pointless to ignore, after all a landslide starts with a couple of pebbles ;)
-
(http://www.politicsforum.org/images/humour/t3_spam_boy.jpg)
-
You should be banned for using anything from T3... ever.
-
Koala bears.
Bah...
POST YOUR FAVORITE HEAVY METAL HERE!!!
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/aurora.jpg)
The legendary Aurora Spyplane
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/images.jpg)
A contrail from the Aurora that uses the scramjet
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/Aircraft_carrier-01.jpg)
Some Navy ships
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/f14-photo-vf154-01l.jpg)
My favorite jet, the F-14 tomcat
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/tank.jpg)
Tank
You can upload you images here (http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/index.php) if you want to add any additional ones.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i don't take lighty to being told that me alone with 1 in 10 americans are second class citizens and that our rights don't have to be respected
i havnt read the thread alot, but i may as well stick up for kazan a little. *shrug* no one else will, and i like argueing. besdies, hes right. kinda.
in the US the famed 'liberty for all thing' is a joke. theyre already starting to deny rights to people for no apparent reason. get used to it kazan, its not getting any better. :(
-
He's right. And I support his position. I don't support his methods, at least not the ones he ends up resorting to.
-
whose right, me? i know im right :nod:
-
Aussie animal fest! Reserved only for all pointless, inflammatory threads like this.....
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/koalas.gif)
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/aadingo1.jpg)
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/koalas.jpg)
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/aadingo2.jpg)
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/aaducks.jpg)
-
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/aaechidn2.jpg)
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/owlkwl.jpg)
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/aakoala2.jpg)
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/aakoala3.jpg)
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/austkoalapicture.jpg)
(http://freespaceserver.cjb.net/image/data/media/1/KoalaBear.jpg)
-
Beat my extint Aussie animal:
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1160000/images/_1162453_tas_tiger300.jpg)
-
Actually, there have been rare claimed sightings of the them, but no confirmed ones ;)
-
Since the topic has gone to hell, I feel I must say this:
Leave the boy scouts alone. Infringing on anything that has to do with "God" because "people will take offense" is ridiculous.
-
As ridiculous as infinging on people who won't swear an oath to him?
-
I agree with Kazan on this, for the most part, but the ACLU has GOT to find something better to complain about than this. It's hardly a life-altering issue...
-
As I said, shooting a puppy because they are 40K in debt ;)
However, I also agree, if the Scouts are going to discriminate, and the Government is trying to show that it is not discriminatory, then the two should be seperated. However, I would have felt there were much bigger fish to worry about first.
-
If they are going after the Boy Scouts for using government money and supporting a vague concept of a higher power, shouldn't they be going after W's faith-based initiatives?
-
Exactly. There are bigger things to worry about than a bunch of Pre-teens saying "Under God."
-
If there are no objections...I think this one is done.