BSA councils attempt to defraud public for funds

[Joni4TA 10]

Some people have spent nearly 7 years on this forum (anniversary's in only a few short days, 2/21 to be exact) doing a whole lot of blowing hot air out of their ______ - errr - keyboard. Pretty sad if you ask me that they have nothing else to do in life. For someone that hates the BSA and everything they stand for so much, why do they continue to post here? For no other reason than to poke and prod and hope to engage folks into arguing with them so they can 'make points' for whoever actually reads what they grumble about. And guess what - they get what they want, every single time. It's not as if they change anyone's viewpoints or anything, they just waste their little finger-typing energy. If everyone ignored them for like one whole month I bet they'd start arguing with theirself. Do ya'll give this much attention to other people that dislike you and everything you stand for or believe in? Yikes, why bother? It seems so pointless to argue with someone who only brings out 'factoids' that they find relevant to support their belief that the "BSA should rescind its exclusionary policy."

 

Please - - - - Build a bridge and get over it already -- - - the BSA doesn't have to do anything it doesn't want to.

 

I am going to say this - Yes..... ok the BSA was wrong if they were trying to infiltrate $2500 worth of HUD funds in a veil of fraud... is anyone happy now? Good... wipe up your tears of joy and victory and please, for the love of Pete, put a sock in it already!

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I would like to know how many cases the ACLU ever decided against Boy Scouts or their Chartering institutions. Wait a minute, I am too impatient to wait this one out. I will give the answer. How many Court Decisions have the ACLU made against the Boy Scouts? Answer, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada. All the ACLU can do is bring a situation to the attention of the COurt system, what happens from there is not the ACLU's "fault". We spend so much time railing against the ACLU when they are not the root cause of the issue. It is judicial decisions that are the issue.

[packsaddle 753]

Nessmuk has posted the last time on this thread and the last few messages have reminded me of times a few decades ago when different conspiracies were popular around here. And the ACLU was involved with a few of them as well. But back then (and to lesser extent, today) the issues were related to whether or not the "-put minority pejorative here-" were going to 'take over'.

 

To answer OGE's question a little differently and to keep Merlyn from having to deliver another civics lesson, the ACLU takes legal action against "the government" to protect our liberties from illegal governmental actions. As such the ACLU is like the little boy pointing to the naked emperor. The courts and the law merely give the ACLU the ability to protect all of us from that emperor.

 

Regarding the pathetic reference to the second amendment, I'm certain that people like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Eric Robert Rudolf share the sentiment.

[Lisabob 13]

For the second time in the last week or so Pappy has made a comparison between something the BSA's supposed enemies are up to on one hand, and Hitler's policies against Jews on the other. I can't ignore that. The problem with equating anything the BSA or its opponents are doing to the holocaust, Pappy, is one of scale. Similarly, when Nessmuk claims we're in a "culture war" and being "attacked" and so on, the problem is one of scale. Folks, war really is horrible. It is not about running around in the woods playing "soldier" for fun.

 

People die. Six million (or more) people were killed as a direct result of the holocaust.

 

As far as I am aware, not one individual has died as a result of disagreements about the BSA's exclusionary membership policies. Such comparisons are therefore not apt and in fact are an insult to people who understand the costs and tragedies of war or genocide on a personal and family level. I am disgusted that anyone would consider using such a comparison to promote their own seeming patriotism.

 

Pappy - you can accuse me of warping or misunderstanding history all you'd like but I will only say that "revisionism" cuts both ways.

 

I'm done commenting on this thread, which I think has become a dead horse to be beaten by those who prefer not to think, and nothing more.

 

 

 

[Hiromi 9]

[Returned to sender. Please spin off a new topic] (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I don't even agree it's a difference of "scale" -- I'm trying to stop the BSA from acting dishonestly and stop misusing HUD grants. In short, I'm insisting that the BSA obey the law.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So, anybody remember Godwin's Law"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

Maybe this should be part of the official Forum Rules?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I not only remember Godwin's Law, I remember Mike Godwin.

[Hiromi 9]

[Returned to sender. Please start or spin off a new topic] (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Beavah 205]

I would like to know how many cases the ACLU ever decided against Boy Scouts or their Chartering institutions.

 

Yah, well, the most well known is the one against the City of Chicago as Chartering Org. for Explorer Posts, eh? The one that caused the spin-off of LFL and the start of the Venturing Program.

 

Not a court decision, as the city settled rather than spend the money to actually try the case. Which goes to show the power of a well-funded litigant to "win" without a judge ever deciding a matter.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yes Beavah, the Chicago case was about a gay man rejected from a Law Explorer post, and it was blatantly illegal. It certainly wasn't a case where the defendant (Chicago) couldn't afford a lawsuit, the defendant (Chicago) didn't WANT to exclude gays, had no INTENTION to exclude gays, but found out (the hard way) that the BSA still would insist that gays be excluded from city-chartered Explorer posts. And there's no more reason Chicago could do this than to declare itself a Christian city and order all non-Christians to move outside of city limits.