Disallow both. But it seems you are for the boy scouts, but against affirmative action. Maybe you are having the cake and also, eating it! Anyway, if you are against affirmative action, you should also, be against this. So, I’d hope you would also disallow both.

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Why should we only discuss the type of discrimination you want to outlaw?

Umm...because that's the subject of this thread?

What I'm basically saying is that you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Don't want to. As I said I'm against affirmative action.

If you want to stop Boy Scouts from discriminating and getting federal funding, I'm damn sure going to bring up affirmative action, because it makes my point nicely and it's hypocritical to fight federally funded discrimination by one organization only.

I'm NOT hypocritical. Read my lips. Affirmative action is wrong.

You don't want to discuss it because you know I'm right.

I don't want to discuss it because it's NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.

Finally, we get you to discuss the subject of federally funded discrimination equally.

You made no point, because we are both against affirmative action.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
... almost any state university is under some form of government subsidy. "Underprivileged" (i.e. minority) students get grant money to attend state universities while the federal government puts programs in place to insure that those universities reserve enrollment spots for the grantees.

Excuse me here, but I don't see where any money given by the government in what you're talking about is going directly to the college itself.

Your point is predicated on the assertion that colleges are being funded by the government, and I don't see it happening.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
In effect, the government is paying for universities to be selective in their enrollment process.

Ok.

But if one group of people in this country has been systematically denied equal access to the educatioal opportunities in this country [and we both know the group, and we both know they HAVE been denied that access in the past] , then the Government, IMO, SHOULD try to make sure that minorities are fully represneted in the college rolls.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
This action is purely discriminatory......

Technically, i would say you're correct.

But its possible that they are trying to correct something very very wrong that was done to a group in the past that prevented them from taking their rightful place at the table. We as a society may have to bend the other way for a while in order to correct a prior mistake.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
After all, if we could turn back the clock 94 years, I don't think we'd be having this conversation.

Of course not.

The de facto stance in this country and this society since its inception has been that all people who worship the Christian god are worshipping THE one and only "right" god and deserve any accomodation they want or demand.............and that all people who worship BibleGod are "good and decent" citizens, and those who do not worship the BibleGod are less human, less decent, less worthy of consideration as citizens and as human beings.

The very epitome of discrimination.

It carries right thru to the present day with the former president's remarks that--- ""No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens ... this is one nation under God" ______George Herbert Walker Bush

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Finally, we get you to discuss the subject of federally funded discrimination equally.

Nope...we can't discuss it equally unless we discuss discrimination based on age, gender, disablity, race, nationality, religion, sexual preference, and any other type of discrimination that takes place. Since these are not all within the pervue of the subject of this thread, it would be pointless, and unproductive to discuss them all when talking about the Boy Scouts, and whether they should receive federal funding.

I notice that you have yet to say whether you believe the Boy Scouts should receive money from the federal government or not. To quote you:

You don't want to discuss it because you know I'm right.
:rolleyes:

Vile, his point is very relevant. You and your liberal friends are the ones that brought up the point that government shouldn't fund orgs that discriminate. All he's saying is that the Boy Scouts aren't the only ones.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
All he's saying is that the Boy Scouts aren't the only ones.

Yep...that's all he's said.

Should he have to say more? Is discrimination not discrimination? I guess your point is that it's only valid when it deals with banning homos and loving God, ay? Or is this type debating technique your attempt to shut him down because you're "staying on topic"??? Don't you see how this IS a valid comparison?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Should he have to say more? Is discrimination not discrimination?

Yes Prae, discrimination is...discrimination.

I guess your point is that it's only valid when it deals with banning homos and loving God, ay?

Bad guess.

Or is this type debating technique your attempt to shut him down because you're "staying on topic"??? Don't you see how this IS a valid comparison?

I just thought maybe he actually had something to say about the Boy Scouts and the federal government, but all he had to say was "What about affirmative action?". It may be a valid cpmparison, but if he wants to talk about affirmative action he should start a new thread.

Personally, since affirmative action has been found legal, I think the military should continue to be a staunch supporter of the Boy Scouts. Happy?

"The voters of this nation, if it's a choice between expanding NAMBLA and preserving the scouting movement, the voters of America want to defend the scouting movement," said Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican and an Eagle Scout, referring to the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
The ACLU defended NAMBLA in a wrongful-death suit brought by the parents of a 10-year-old Massachusetts boy slain by a member of the association.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041118-120306-2962r.htm


NAMBLA----What is it?

http://216.220.97.17/

Originally posted by old-reb
NAMBLA----What is it?

http://216.220.97.17/

A fucked up group of sickies that try to frame the statutory rape of young boys as some sort of beautiful loving relationship.

Yikes! :( How in the hell did you stumble across that site, Lionel?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Yikes! :( How in the hell did you stumble across that site, Lionel?

Uh, by quoting Old-Reb, that's how.

OOP's...sorry, that was pretty stupid. I wonder how in the hell he found it!?!

CompuGeek
Posts: 781
(1/6/05 6:56 pm)
Reply
New Post ACLU One acronym:

N.A.M.B.L.A.


vREBELvROSEv
Stir Master
Posts: 79
(1/6/05 7:35 pm)
Reply New Post N.A.M.B.L.A Yep. A good old fashioned U.S. organization for the legalized statutory rape of children. >: Just the type of cause the trashy ACLU slime can promote then defend.

Edited by: vREBELvROSEv at: 1/6/05 7:41 pm
2damnold4this
Stir Master
Posts: 260
(1/6/05 8:46 pm)
Reply New Post Re: N.A.M.B.L.A What restrictions would you place on freedom of speech?

Spamiam
Spamta
Posts: 3448
(1/6/05 9:13 pm)
Reply
New Post ACLU Any speech that promotes physical harm to another.


http://p069.ezboard.com/famericanstewfrm2.showMessageRange?topicID=1800.to pic&start=21&stop=40