Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vermont Scouts denied July 4th vendor permit and withdraw

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by SSScout View Post
    Merlyn: That's exactly right. So long as they( the Council) can be democratically elected, they have shown themselves to be worthy of replacement. At least I would favor that , based on their displayed choices. The BSA Troop has shown them (at least a majority of them) to be more concerned with a perceived discrimination rather than the importance of their local children. As to the discrimination against otherwise worthy adult leaders, well , we're working on that....
    Sound like the council is discriminating against the Boy Scouts. Kinda makes one wonder if the pot is calling the kettle black. Two wrongs to make a right. One would think that these hypocrites who are so super sensitive to discrimination can't see it deeply embedded in their own actions. How blind the foolish become.

    Stosh

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Rick_in_CA View Post
      . . .
      As for dismissing the NYT, it's still one of the best well balanced sources for news in the country. Much better than any of the sources on cable or tv.
      Sort of like hailing a polite armed robber. NYT is proudly left-wing. That's OK. Others are proudly right-wing. I'd like to find "Proudly Objective." That NYT is clearly not. PLEASE ask for examples.

      Look, the IRS messed up in how it handled the BOLO lists, that isn't in dispute. Did the IRS target conservative groups for political reasons? No. Did they only target conservative groups? No. Even the articles you linked too agree with that.
      However, the fact is that the right was disproportionately targeted, all right groups were denied certification, all but one left group was certified. So you are accurate - and ignoring the truth at the same time. Sort of like NYT hailing fall in unimployment while ignoring fall in absolute and relative numbers of the employed and increase of those on public assistance. (Those not actively seeking work do not count.) But if I was an organ actively supporting the current government, that is what I would focus on as well.

      I however think you are right about the emails. Lots of questions there: Why doesn't the IRS have a system for automatically archiving their emails (depending on each employee to print and file each email is their current system)? There were seven hard drive crashes, out of how many hard drives (if it's seven out of eight or something like that - that doesn't pass the smell test. If it's seven out of a eight hundred - that could)?
      The emails would have been stored, in the first instance, on a server, not indivdual PC's; there is no information on any crash of servers; there IS a back-up system that stores all emails on tape and it says ?????. Didn't trust The Trick. Don't trust the current band of pols. Power, even for one with almost no experience of using power, seems to corrupt. Didn't someone say that once? 0___0
      Last edited by TAHAWK; 07-08-2014, 11:24 PM. Reason: -t

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by SSScout View Post
        Merlyn: That's exactly right. So long as they( the Council) can be democratically elected, they have shown themselves to be worthy of replacement. At least I would favor that , based on their displayed choices. The BSA Troop has shown them (at least a majority of them) to be more concerned with a perceived discrimination rather than the importance of their local children. As to the discrimination against otherwise worthy adult leaders, well , we're working on that....

        Well, I'd favor removing them if they murdered everyone in the room, too. But that's still no reason to say "they can murder everyone in the room."

        Comment


        • #94
          Hey, I'm not giving them permission, only saying it can and did happen! Not giving the permit, I mean, and as the ruling cabal of the town, that's what they did. Their reasons (not meeting the ordinance requirements, not being tall enough, not using black ink on the application, whatever) are why we are having this discussion, right?

          Comment


          • #95
            That's not quite what happened -- they voted to table it and discuss it in two weeks, and the troop decided to drop the application. The council didn't deny the permit.

            By the way, this kind of crap happens to atheist groups all the time. After one or two apparently-unjustified delays, it's time to file a lawsuit.

            Comment


            • #96
              It pays to read the material. Here it is again.

              "The IRS has told the House Ways and Means Committee that six other employees who had communicated with Lerner also had hard-drive crashes. They include Nikole Flax, the chief of staff to the acting commissioner and Michelle Eldridge, an IRS spokeswoman, and four agents working on exempt organization cases."

              http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ails/10695507/

              Maybe the Chief of Staff and the Spokeswoman were not working on the exempt organization cases, but Lerner and the four agents definitely were.
              So five out of seven are definitely hard drives that contained incriminating information. IRS had to crash those hard drives because they had copies of Lerner's eMails. And the agents responses and actions.

              That is a little different from your '7 out of thousands' distraction.

              Comment


              • #97
                "I'm from the government and I'm here to help! The check is in the mail."

                Don't stay up too late waiting.

                Stosh

                Comment


                • #98
                  At the risk of being accused (again) of trampling on peoples' right to freedom of speech, would it be possible for someone to create a new thread for this IRS stuff, so that those of us who prefer to read about Scouting-related topics in this forum can stay away from it?

                  Sometimes I think we need TWO "Issues and Politics" forums, one for issues that have some relationship with Scouting, and one for the occasional thread (or off-topic diversion of a thread like the one we have here) that has nothing at all to do with Scouting. I would probably stay out of the latter completely, unless I get a "flag report" that caused me to come in and trample on someone's "right" to use one of the "seven dirty words" or post advertising spam, or some other threat to peace and order.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by NJCubScouter View Post
                    At the risk of being accused (again) of trampling on peoples' right to freedom of speech, would it be possible for someone to create a new thread for this IRS stuff, so that those of us who prefer to read about Scouting-related topics in this forum can stay away from it?
                    I was going to create a new thread to move this stuff too, but decided there wasn't any point. No one is going to change anyone's opinion on the question or learn anything as we don't even agree on what is reality. I'm done.

                    Comment


                    • Agreed. Let's take this in a different direction and get the Coal Rollers really fired up. Considering that ounce per ounce bottles water is more expensive than gasoline and disposable water bottles are frowned upon by Scouters (at least in my council). Is it ethical for Boy Scouts to sell disposable water bottles in the first place?

                      Comment


                      • Sure. They can recycle.

                        Also, what is not "disposable"? Look in the L&F at the end of Summer Camp nad see what gets disposed of. (It's the single boots that get me.)

                        Comment


                        • Some side notes:
                          '
                          Though Vermont was the first state to pass a bottle law (1953) where a deposit was added for each beverage bottle as an inducement to recycle, the law covered beer, soda, but not water bottles. An expanded water bottle bill is under discussion as well as a repeal of the existing law.

                          Concord, MA bans the sale of plastic water bottles. Like Vermont, Massachusetts bottle law does not cover water botttles either. NH has no bottle law.

                          Yeah, I never understood why people buy $$$ water bottles. When I was a kid, the "water bottle" was a 1-2 quart refillable glass bottle in the fridge. Dad drank straight from the bottle while us kids had to use cups.

                          Comment


                          • In our town we had a source of aquifer water that was free. People lined up to get the water which was no different than the aquifer water out of the city tap that had been sanitized and fluoridated. Yes, there's a difference in the chemicals and cleansing process, However, there is no industry standard where those who bottle water get their water from. I'm thinking it is probably safe to say that for inspection purposes, the water has been treated. Basically one is paying for the bottle.

                            This has to be the biggest marketing scam ever pulled off in our country.

                            Stosh

                            Comment


                            • "Boss, do you have a minute? I have a new idea. Can I run it past you?"
                              "Come in , Milford, come in. Sure, what's your idea?"
                              "Well, we sell a lot of our (insert soda brand name), and the sales figures sure indicate it's popularity. It cost us (insert dollar amount) per pint bottle to produce and transport and market. Each bottle as produced, gives us a guaranteed profit of (insert dollar amount). What if I told you we could ELIMINATE all but the main ingredient of our product?"
                              " Yes, go on..."
                              " Well, why do people drink our (insert soda name)? Because they are thirsty. Why don't we just eliminate the sugar, flavoring, coloring and sell the water?"
                              "...?.."
                              " We convince folks to buy our (insert soda name) with our sexy marketing, I think we can convince them to buy bottled water! Think about it, is YOUR water save to drink? Why go to the trouble to fill up, carry, rinse out your own container? We will eliminate all that hassle!"
                              "Milford, I think you may be on to something here. "

                              Comment


                              • NU, you were saying...???
                                Interesting thread evolution here. The OP, then the IRS, then an attempt to change the topic to bottled water with the risk of irking the ire of persons critical of recycling, and now minimum deposit legislation and perhaps lack of regulatory oversight on bottled water, not to mention the history of Coca Cola and Dasani Water (a.k.a. Atlanta municipal tap water).
                                I have a deep well. I just drink that. I do recycle everything that I able to but I also save a 1 liter plastic drink bottle once in a while as a reusable water bottle. They're nearly indestructible and can be found lying around everywhere for free.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X