Boy Scouts being discriminated against?

[Tiger Al 0]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

Here are a few definitions for you:

a group of people who differ racially or politically from a larger group of which it is a part

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment; the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole

Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So as gays and Blacks are often treated differently(both in good and bad ways) and they fit the description of being the smaller part(straight vs. gay white vs. Black) then they fit my definition of minority.

As far as trying to eliminate the good to appease the gays, I think they are trying to limit giving funds to private groups that discriminate, as they should. What the Boy Scouts do should not be an issue, they are not equal opportunity and thus should not get finacial assistance from the government.

Are you a member of any church? If so which denomination?

That is not a hard question and there is absolutely no judgment involved in the question.

I'll bite...I'm Catholic. What's your point?

[autiger4life 3]

Are you a member of any church? If so which denomination?

That is not a hard question and there is absolutely no judgment involved in the question.

Well, since I'd like to keep to the thread topic I'm not going to answer that but if you truly care you can PM me and talk about it.

I'm going to give a hypothetical here: If there was a organization that had paying members, who only allowed in gays, and their reasoning was because they didn't think straights were moral, and their mission was this: to promote violence free areas, raising young people into contributing members of society, and foster a spiritual growth. Would anyone here care if they got $1 rent in an area like this?

The reason I ask is this, I don't understand how someone wouldn't be okay with this but they are okay with the boy scouts getting the tax break. It would seem inconsistent.

However, I would not support either of them getting rent relief since they both discriminate against another group.

As far as someone saying we are treating intolerance with intolerance, well I guess that could be true. Isn't it most people here who are all for an eye for an eye?

[Tigermike 3,041]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

Here are a few definitions for you:

a group of people who differ racially or politically from a larger group of which it is a part

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment; the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole

Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So as gays and Blacks are often treated differently(both in good and bad ways) and they fit the description of being the smaller part(straight vs. gay white vs. Black) then they fit my definition of minority.

As far as trying to eliminate the good to appease the gays, I think they are trying to limit giving funds to private groups that discriminate, as they should. What the Boy Scouts do should not be an issue, they are not equal opportunity and thus should not get finacial assistance from the government.

Are you a member of any church? If so which denomination?

That is not a hard question and there is absolutely no judgment involved in the question.

I'll bite...I'm Catholic. What's your point?

The point is simple. If you are not writing your church for being anti gay since they don't condone it you are a hypocrite. The gay activists have been pushing for inclusion in the churches but the churches haven't been singled out like the boy scouts. The Boy Scouts declare they believe in God why aren't you guys demanding they not discriminate against atheists?

[Tiger Al 0]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

Here are a few definitions for you:

a group of people who differ racially or politically from a larger group of which it is a part

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment; the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole

Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So as gays and Blacks are often treated differently(both in good and bad ways) and they fit the description of being the smaller part(straight vs. gay white vs. Black) then they fit my definition of minority.

As far as trying to eliminate the good to appease the gays, I think they are trying to limit giving funds to private groups that discriminate, as they should. What the Boy Scouts do should not be an issue, they are not equal opportunity and thus should not get finacial assistance from the government.

Are you a member of any church? If so which denomination?

That is not a hard question and there is absolutely no judgment involved in the question.

I'll bite...I'm Catholic. What's your point?

The point is simple. If you are not writing your church for being anti gay since they don't condone it you are a hypocrite. The gay activists have been pushing for inclusion in the churches but the churches haven't been singled out like the boy scouts. The Boy Scouts declare they believe in God why aren't you guys demanding they not discriminate against atheists?

I don't think it's hypocritical at all. I'm able to make the distinction between what a PRIVATE religious organization believes that uses its own internal resources to propagate those beliefs versus what a PUBLIC organization believes that uses public benefits to propagate theirs. As I said before, while I don't believe in the practices of some country clubs who discriminate against members based on gender, race, etc., they are private clubs relying on no public funds and are, therefore, within their right to do so.

And one point for clarification; the Catholic Church doesn't disallow homosexuals from being Catholic.

But, you've done a bait-and-switch as per your usual. While it would be nice if the boy scouts chose its leaders based on his skill and ability and not his religious or sexual orientation, they don't and that's fine. No one here is arguing that point or demanding that they change their practices. The issue is that since they are discriminatory (which is fine) they shouldn't be given this massive financial windfall at the public's expense, especially a sector of that public which they actively discriminate against. This is a point that you consistently fail to grasp anytime issues like this come up. I don't care who you hate or why you hate them, just don't ask the public to subsidize and propagate your hatred.

[Tigermike 3,041]

I don't think it's hypocritical at all. I'm able to make the distinction between what a PRIVATE religious organization believes that uses its own internal resources to propagate those beliefs versus what a PUBLIC organization believes that uses public benefits to propagate theirs. As I said before, while I don't believe in the practices of some country clubs who discriminate against members based on gender, race, etc., they are private clubs relying on no public funds and are, therefore, within their right to do so.

And one point for clarification; the Catholic Church doesn't disallow homosexuals from being Catholic.

But, you've done a bait-and-switch as per your usual. While it would be nice if the boy scouts chose its leaders based on his skill and ability and not his religious or sexual orientation, they don't and that's fine. No one here is arguing that point or demanding that they change their practices. The issue is that since they are discriminatory (which is fine) they shouldn't be given this massive financial windfall at the public's expense, especially a sector of that public which they actively discriminate against. This is a point that you consistently fail to grasp anytime issues like this come up. I don't care who you hate or why you hate them, just don't ask the public to subsidize and propagate your hatred.

We will start at the bottom (no pun intended in a gay thread).

I don't care who you hate or why you hate them, just don't ask the public to subsidize and propagate your hatred.

Once again a typical lib, dim, leftist, gay activists response normally expected from Al. I don't hate anyone. I have different views from you and your masters. Call names all you want Mr. Hypocrite.

And one point for clarification; the Catholic Church doesn't disallow homosexuals from being Catholic.

Priest either it seems from the news and $$$$million$$$$ settlements.

The issue is that since they are discriminatory (which is fine)

They are not discriminatory. They have rules of conduct which is fine for most of the world but not for your gay activist agenda. They don't want openly and actively gay men taking young boys out in the woods. You have no problem with that because you are willing to sacriface the well being of any young boy on the alter of political corretness and the gay agenda. Many parents are not and the boy scouts are not. You and your gay lobby call them discriminatory because there are gay men who want to take young boys into the woods. Why?

While it would be nice if the boy scouts chose its leaders based on his skill and ability and not his religious or sexual orientation, they don't and that's fine.

They chose their leaders both on skill and ability and on religious and sexual orientation. Most parents have no problem with that. If your gay buds want to be scout leaders why not start the National Gay Scouts? If they want to do that they can exclude all the straight people they want. No one would care.

No one here is arguing that point or demanding that they change their practices.

I call bull**** on this. If no one is demanding that they change their practices what has been the big bruhaha for the past ten to fifteen years? It has been gay activists demanding access to young boys in the woods.

The issue is that since they are discriminatory (which is fine) they shouldn't be given this massive financial windfall at the public's expense, especially a sector of that public which they actively

discriminate against.

As I have said before in this thread the money is just an excuse to further the gay jihid against the boy scouts. You know it and if you were not such a hypocrite you would admit it.

This is a point that you consistently fail to grasp anytime issues like this come up.

I fail to grasp because I don't swollow your PC BS by the mouthfull. I know another great choice of words in a gay thread.

just don't ask the public to subsidize and propagate your hatred.

You mean like you and the gay lobby are demanding that the public subsidize and propagate your agenda and your propaganda?

Why haven't you seen fit to get in this thread Al?

[Tiger Al 0]

Priest either it seems from the news and $$$$million$$$$ settlements.

These priests preyed on children. They are pedophiles. I realize that to you homosexuals and pedophiles are the same thing because that makes it easier to dismiss any serious diacussion where homosexuality is concerned.

They are not discriminatory. They have rules of conduct which is fine for most of the world but not for your gay activist agenda. They don't want openly and actively gay men taking young boys out in the woods. You have no problem with that because you are willing to sacriface the well being of any young boy on the alter of political corretness and the gay agenda. Many parents are not and the boy scouts are not. You and your gay lobby call them discriminatory because there are gay men who want to take young boys into the woods. Why?

What rules of conduct would a homosexual scout leader be breaking that a heterosexual one wouldn't? I wouldn't think discussion/demonstration/participation in sexual matters would be acceptable no matter the sexual orientation of the adults present. Why would it be appropriate for an adult to discuss sexual matters in the woods with children other than his own? Why would it be appropriate for a heterosexual scoutmaster to molest boys in the woods?

They chose their leaders both on skill and ability and on religious and sexual orientation. Most parents have no problem with that. If your gay buds want to be scout leaders why not start the National Gay Scouts? If they want to do that they can exclude all the straight people they want. No one would care.

And on this I've agreed fully with their right to discriminate if that's what they want to do. I disagree, however, with the very people they discriminate against being forced to support them. If the government were giving this financial break to a similar Islamic boys organization that didn't allow Jews to join I'm sure you would be able to see the discrimination there and would not agree with the government giving that group the same benefits ($200,000 rent for $1).

I call bull**** on this. If no one is demanding that they change their practices what has been the big bruhaha for the past ten to fifteen years? It has been gay activists demanding access to young boys in the woods.

Sure, they tried to get the scouts to stop discriminating against non-Christians, girls and homosexuals. They won't and the Supreme Court said that, as a private organization, they don't have to. OK. Private organizations shouldn't have access to public funds or other entitlements provided by the public at large.

As I have said before in this thread the money is just an excuse to further the gay jihid against the boy scouts. You know it and if you were not such a hypocrite you would admit it.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals trying to remove their personal sexual choices from the checklists of some people as a determining factor as to whether they are treated fairly. If that somehow makes me a hypocrite, OK.

I fail to grasp because I don't swollow your PC BS by the mouthfull. I know another great choice of words in a gay thread.

It has nothing to do with being politically correct. What reason do I have to discriminate against another person because of who he or she chooses to have sex with? What reason do I have, if I'm a resident of Philadelphia, to support a group that DOES by, in effect, giving them $199,999 a year?

Why haven't you seen fit to get in this thread Al?

Because that, like most of the opinion pieces you post, aren't worth discussing. I doubt that (until I just clicked the link to see what you were talking about) I had even looked at it before. Usually I just mark your threads as read and move on until I see enough responses to them to pique my curiosity.

[Tigermike 3,041]

Why haven't you seen fit to get in this thread Al?

Because that, like most of the opinion pieces you post, aren't worth discussing. I doubt that (until I just clicked the link to see what you were talking about) I had even looked at it before. Usually I just mark your threads as read and move on until I see enough responses to them to pique my curiosity.

So you are content happy and approve the dims agenda. You guys support the troops don't you?

Oops this is a gay thread something near and dear to your heart. sorry

[TitanTiger 20,499]

They are not discriminatory. They have rules of conduct which is fine for most of the world but not for your gay activist agenda. They don't want openly and actively gay men taking young boys out in the woods. You have no problem with that because you are willing to sacriface the well being of any young boy on the alter of political corretness and the gay agenda. Many parents are not and the boy scouts are not. You and your gay lobby call them discriminatory because there are gay men who want to take young boys into the woods. Why?

What rules of conduct would a homosexual scout leader be breaking that a heterosexual one wouldn't? I wouldn't think discussion/demonstration/participation in sexual matters would be acceptable no matter the sexual orientation of the adults present. Why would it be appropriate for an adult to discuss sexual matters in the woods with children other than his own? Why would it be appropriate for a heterosexual scoutmaster to molest boys in the woods?

I have a question. Put aside the discussion of sexual matters. If it's perfectly ok for a gay man to be able to take 11-13 year old boys out on overnight camping trips, would you have a problem with an adult woman taking a group of similar age boys out on an overnight trip sleeping in the woods? What about a man who wanted to take a group of 11-13 year old girls out for a similar trip? I mean, neither of them are pedophiles. They are just adults who happen to be sexually attracted to adult males and females respectively. No different really than a gay man who happens to be attracted to adult males, is it?

[Tiger Al 0]

They are not discriminatory. They have rules of conduct which is fine for most of the world but not for your gay activist agenda. They don't want openly and actively gay men taking young boys out in the woods. You have no problem with that because you are willing to sacriface the well being of any young boy on the alter of political corretness and the gay agenda. Many parents are not and the boy scouts are not. You and your gay lobby call them discriminatory because there are gay men who want to take young boys into the woods. Why?

What rules of conduct would a homosexual scout leader be breaking that a heterosexual one wouldn't? I wouldn't think discussion/demonstration/participation in sexual matters would be acceptable no matter the sexual orientation of the adults present. Why would it be appropriate for an adult to discuss sexual matters in the woods with children other than his own? Why would it be appropriate for a heterosexual scoutmaster to molest boys in the woods?

I have a question. Put aside the discussion of sexual matters. If it's perfectly ok for a gay man to be able to take 11-13 year old boys out on overnight camping trips, would you have a problem with an adult woman taking a group of similar age boys out on an overnight trip sleeping in the woods? What about a man who wanted to take a group of 11-13 year old girls out for a similar trip? I mean, neither of them are pedophiles. They are just adults who happen to be sexually attracted to adult males and females respectively. No different really than a gay man who happens to be attracted to adult males, is it?

If I had previously met and felt comfortable with any of the aforementioned people I wouldn't have a problem. Of course, I never went on any scouting trips where there weren't at least two, but usually three to four, adults present and I personally wouldn't take any group of kids into the woods for an extended period without other adults being present. Too many things (not sexual) can happen.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

They are not discriminatory. They have rules of conduct which is fine for most of the world but not for your gay activist agenda. They don't want openly and actively gay men taking young boys out in the woods. You have no problem with that because you are willing to sacriface the well being of any young boy on the alter of political corretness and the gay agenda. Many parents are not and the boy scouts are not. You and your gay lobby call them discriminatory because there are gay men who want to take young boys into the woods. Why?

What rules of conduct would a homosexual scout leader be breaking that a heterosexual one wouldn't? I wouldn't think discussion/demonstration/participation in sexual matters would be acceptable no matter the sexual orientation of the adults present. Why would it be appropriate for an adult to discuss sexual matters in the woods with children other than his own? Why would it be appropriate for a heterosexual scoutmaster to molest boys in the woods?

I have a question. Put aside the discussion of sexual matters. If it's perfectly ok for a gay man to be able to take 11-13 year old boys out on overnight camping trips, would you have a problem with an adult woman taking a group of similar age boys out on an overnight trip sleeping in the woods? What about a man who wanted to take a group of 11-13 year old girls out for a similar trip? I mean, neither of them are pedophiles. They are just adults who happen to be sexually attracted to adult males and females respectively. No different really than a gay man who happens to be attracted to adult males, is it?

If I had previously met and felt comfortable with any of the aforementioned people I wouldn't have a problem. Of course, I never went on any scouting trips where there weren't at least two, but usually three to four, adults present and I personally wouldn't take any group of kids into the woods for an extended period without other adults being present. Too many things (not sexual) can happen.

I think you are in a vast, vast minority if you would let, for instance, your 12-year old daughter go on a camping trip overnight with a male scoutmaster or scoutmasters and no adult female present. I know I wouldn't.

[Tiger Al 0]

They are not discriminatory. They have rules of conduct which is fine for most of the world but not for your gay activist agenda. They don't want openly and actively gay men taking young boys out in the woods. You have no problem with that because you are willing to sacriface the well being of any young boy on the alter of political corretness and the gay agenda. Many parents are not and the boy scouts are not. You and your gay lobby call them discriminatory because there are gay men who want to take young boys into the woods. Why?

What rules of conduct would a homosexual scout leader be breaking that a heterosexual one wouldn't? I wouldn't think discussion/demonstration/participation in sexual matters would be acceptable no matter the sexual orientation of the adults present. Why would it be appropriate for an adult to discuss sexual matters in the woods with children other than his own? Why would it be appropriate for a heterosexual scoutmaster to molest boys in the woods?

I have a question. Put aside the discussion of sexual matters. If it's perfectly ok for a gay man to be able to take 11-13 year old boys out on overnight camping trips, would you have a problem with an adult woman taking a group of similar age boys out on an overnight trip sleeping in the woods? What about a man who wanted to take a group of 11-13 year old girls out for a similar trip? I mean, neither of them are pedophiles. They are just adults who happen to be sexually attracted to adult males and females respectively. No different really than a gay man who happens to be attracted to adult males, is it?

If I had previously met and felt comfortable with any of the aforementioned people I wouldn't have a problem. Of course, I never went on any scouting trips where there weren't at least two, but usually three to four, adults present and I personally wouldn't take any group of kids into the woods for an extended period without other adults being present. Too many things (not sexual) can happen.

I think you are in a vast, vast minority if you would let, for instance, your 12-year old daughter go on a camping trip overnight with a male scoutmaster or scoutmasters and no adult female present. I know I wouldn't.

I think it might help if you read my entire post. My experience has been that there are always 2,3 or 4 adults in the group. I didn't think you meant that one person, alone, would be the only adult. Like I said, I personally wouldn't agree to take a group on an extended trip by myself because, if for no other reason, if something happened to me the kids would be potentially endangered.

So, let me clarify my answer to your question. I would not agree to let my kids go off on an extended trip where only one adult was present, regardless of sexual orientation or leader/group gender mix.

In your scenario with 11-13 yr old girls, yes, my preference would be for a female to be present but that would be because of gender-related issues, not necessarily sexual ones. The scoutmasters could be homosexual men with zero sexual interest in females and I'd still want a female present and I'm sure the 11-13 yr old girls would, too.

[autiger4life 3]

They chose their leaders both on skill and ability and on religious and sexual orientation. Most parents have no problem with that. If your gay buds want to be scout leaders why not start the National Gay Scouts? If they want to do that they can exclude all the straight people they want. No one would care.

TigerMike, this question is for you. You have yet to answer it even though I have asked twice before so let me plainly ask you again:

Would you be okay giving the National Gay Scouts $1 rent when it was worth $300,000?

[Tiger Al 0]

They chose their leaders both on skill and ability and on religious and sexual orientation. Most parents have no problem with that. If your gay buds want to be scout leaders why not start the National Gay Scouts? If they want to do that they can exclude all the straight people they want. No one would care.

TigerMike, this question is for you. You have yet to answer it even though I have asked twice before so let me plainly ask you again:

Would you be okay giving the National Gay Scouts $1 rent when it was worth $300,000?

He only answers the questions you've never asked and he only attacks the positions you've never taken. He's a modern-day Don Quixote who's happy to build the windmills he then destroys!

[Tigermike 3,041]

They chose their leaders both on skill and ability and on religious and sexual orientation. Most parents have no problem with that. If your gay buds want to be scout leaders why not start the National Gay Scouts? If they want to do that they can exclude all the straight people they want. No one would care.

TigerMike, this question is for you. You have yet to answer it even though I have asked twice before so let me plainly ask you again:

Would you be okay giving the National Gay Scouts $1 rent when it was worth $300,000?

Unlike you I answer questions.

As far as I know this is the first time you asked the question. If you ask earlier I didn't see it. So when you want to call someone out, choose a better way than this.

I really don't care what the National Gay Scouts do. I don't care where they meet or who they rent from or for how much.

They chose their leaders both on skill and ability and on religious and sexual orientation. Most parents have no problem with that. If your gay buds want to be scout leaders why not start the National Gay Scouts? If they want to do that they can exclude all the straight people they want. No one would care.

TigerMike, this question is for you. You have yet to answer it even though I have asked twice before so let me plainly ask you again:

Would you be okay giving the National Gay Scouts $1 rent when it was worth $300,000?

He only answers the questions you've never asked and he only attacks the positions you've never taken. He's a modern-day Don Quixote who's happy to build the windmills he then destroys!

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

[autiger4life 3]

I'm going to give a hypothetical here: If there was a organization that had paying members, who only allowed in gays, and their reasoning was because they didn't think straights were moral, and their mission was this: to promote violence free areas, raising young people into contributing members of society, and foster a spiritual growth. Would anyone here care if they got $1 rent in an area like this?

There is where I asked it the first time. It is on page four.

I really don't care what the National Gay Scouts do. I don't care where they meet or who they rent from or for how much.

No, would you be okay with the City of Philly giving them $1 rent when the rent would be $300,000 for any other organization? Because I don't think that many people arguing that the Boy Scouts are being slighted here would be okay with the National Gay Scouts getting the same help. Instead we would be hearing about how the gay dims were at it again. But hey, I could be wrong. So once again, would you be FOR the National Gay Scouts getting the cheap rent from the government.

They are not discriminatory. They have rules of conduct which is fine for most of the world but not for your gay activist agenda

Here are a few definitions of discrimination:

To show prejudice against

Discrimination is the failure to treat people in the same way because of a bias toward some of them because of some characteristic--such as race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation,

So yes, it is discrimination. Second, it has nothing to do with an agenda. As I have said I wouldn't be for gays getting the same break, so I'm obviously not fighting for gays, I'm against a private discriminative group getting public funding.

[Tiger Al 0]

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

Ah, namecalling. A weak arguments' best defense.

[Tigermike 3,041]

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

Ah, namecalling. A weak arguments' best defense.

Ah avoidance, a liars only defense.

[Tigermike 3,041]

I'm going to give a hypothetical here: If there was a organization that had paying members, who only allowed in gays, and their reasoning was because they didn't think straights were moral, and their mission was this: to promote violence free areas, raising young people into contributing members of society, and foster a spiritual growth. Would anyone here care if they got $1 rent in an area like this?

There is where I asked it the first time. It is on page four.

I really don't care what the National Gay Scouts do. I don't care where they meet or who they rent from or for how much.

No, would you be okay with the City of Philly giving them $1 rent when the rent would be $300,000 for any other organization? Because I don't think that many people arguing that the Boy Scouts are being slighted here would be okay with the National Gay Scouts getting the same help. Instead we would be hearing about how the gay dims were at it again. But hey, I could be wrong. So once again, would you be FOR the National Gay Scouts getting the cheap rent from the government.

They are not discriminatory. They have rules of conduct which is fine for most of the world but not for your gay activist agenda

Here are a few definitions of discrimination:

To show prejudice against

Discrimination is the failure to treat people in the same way because of a bias toward some of them because of some characteristic--such as race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation,

So yes, it is discrimination. Second, it has nothing to do with an agenda. As I have said I wouldn't be for gays getting the same break, so I'm obviously not fighting for gays, I'm against a private discriminative group getting public funding.

You know about as much about discrimination as you do the religion of peace.

[autiger4life 3]

You know about as much about discrimination as you do the religion of peace.

And we return to the, "Looks like I don't have an argument so I guess I'll bring up something that has nothing to do with the topic."

You see, when you make a statement, I actually argue by giving definitions disproving you point and then ask a question as a counter point. You then come out with a statement bringing up another topic that is still based on your opinion and add nothing to the current argument. You debate like a bama fan.

Auburn fan: "Yea, we are going to win this year."

Alabama fan: "Got Twelve?"

Auburn fan: "What does that have to do with anything?"

Me:

Here are a few definitions of discrimination:

To show prejudice against

Discrimination is the failure to treat people in the same way because of a bias toward some of them because of some characteristic--such as race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation,

You:

You know about as much about discrimination as you do the religion of peace.

Me: "How is that even a rebuttal?"

Also once again, can you answer the question that you continue to avoid:

If there was a National Gay Scouts, would you lobby to give them free rent when the fair market price was $300,000?

[Tiger Al 0]

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

Ah, namecalling. A weak arguments' best defense.

Ah avoidance, a liars only defense.

What have I avoided and what have I lied about?

[Tiger Al 0]

You know about as much about discrimination as you do the religion of peace.

And we return to the, "Looks like I don't have an argument so I guess I'll bring up something that has nothing to do with the topic."

And now you've begun to learn how the game is played. If you'd like, I can PM you as to how the rest of it will play out.

[Tigermike 3,041]

You know about as much about discrimination as you do the religion of peace.

And we return to the, "Looks like I don't have an argument so I guess I'll bring up something that has nothing to do with the topic."

You see, when you make a statement, I actually argue by giving definitions disproving you point and then ask a question as a counter point. You then come out with a statement bringing up another topic that is still based on your opinion and add nothing to the current argument. You debate like a bama fan.

Auburn fan: "Yea, we are going to win this year."

Alabama fan: "Got Twelve?"

Auburn fan: "What does that have to do with anything?"

Me:

Here are a few definitions of discrimination:

To show prejudice against

Discrimination is the failure to treat people in the same way because of a bias toward some of them because of some characteristic--such as race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation,

You:

You know about as much about discrimination as you do the religion of peace.

Me: "How is that even a rebuttal?"

Also once again, can you answer the question that you continue to avoid:

If there was a National Gay Scouts, would you lobby to give them free rent when the fair market price was $300,000?

How many times do you want it answered? Is your reading comprehension as selective as your replies to any and all topics?

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

Ah, namecalling. A weak arguments' best defense.

You started personal attacks early in this thread. Which is normal. You do it regurlarly.

[Tiger Al 0]

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

Ah, namecalling. A weak arguments' best defense.

You started personal attacks early in this thread. Which is normal. You do it regurlarly.

Well, let's tally up the personal attacks. So far, you've called me a hypocrite and a liar, both numerous times. I've not attacked you personally. I have responded to your posts respectfully and thoughtfully despite receiving the same courtesy from you.

[autiger4life 3]

How many times do you want it answered? Is your reading comprehension as selective as your replies to any and all topics?

The only time you attempted to answer it, you did not address the correct question. You said you would not mind if they meet or existed. My question was whether you were okay with them getting a $300,000 tax break just as you are with the Boy Scouts. I will be satisfied if you can just answer the question. I will even outline the possible choices.

1. I would be okay with the National Gay Boy Scouts getting $1 rent when the market value was $300,000.

2. I would not be okay with the National Gay Boy Scouts getting $1 rent when the market value was $300,000.

Is your reading comprehension as selective as your replies to any and all topics?

Another personal attack from TigerMike? I think so.

[Tigermike 3,041]

And you are a hypocritical little liar.

Ah, namecalling. A weak arguments' best defense.

You started personal attacks early in this thread. Which is normal. You do it regurlarly.

Well, let's tally up the personal attacks. So far, you've called me a hypocrite and a liar, both numerous times. I've not attacked you personally. I have responded to your posts respectfully and thoughtfully despite receiving the same courtesy from you.

I don't care who you hate or why you hate them, just don't ask the public to subsidize and propagate your hatred.

Your right Al an accusation like that is not a personal attack is it?

Obviously when I called you a hypocrite and a liar, I was correct.