Merlyn_LeRoy

Gonzo1 writes: It's no secret, I don't like you, but I have been courteous. No, you haven't. "Sleep tight Merlyn while the feds and the military keep clowns like you safe" "Aww never mind, you probably think Adolf Hitler was a good guy too." That's not courteous. I find your last comment "That'd be mighty white of you." to be particularly rude and offensive. I don't think you understand the phrase. It's a sarcastic way to say you're being "fair" when you really aren't. It's like, oh, I dunno, calling someone a clown or saying they thought Hitler was a good guy, and then complaining that THEY are being rude to YOU. Besides, you have mastered the art of "deflection" by not addressing the other questions I asked, I really want to know the answers Which questions are those? I've answered a lot of your questions, but (as above) you aren't always very specific about what you're asking. and now I demand an apology for your rudeness. I am not apologizing. BTW, rent from a city at a low price described here as "peanuts" is not really a subsidy. I disagree. If I rent a building from the government for $1 that would cost $1000 if anyone else rented it, the government is subsidizing me for the other $999. You can call it something else if it'll make you happy, it's still government-financed favoritism.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Gonzo1, the BSA discriminates against atheists. If they didn't allow Jews (which they could do, of course, since they're a private organization), you'd probably be mystified why Jews would try to remove special government subsidies from a "no Jews allowed" private club, and offer to let them join if they would just pretend to be some other religion. That'd be mighty white of you.

Gonzo1 writes: The council had a lease and did not violate the terms of the lease since 1928. The city of Philadelphia isn't violating the terms of the lease, either. They can terminate the lease by giving one year's notice. It seem that Philly just wants some cash and find the scouts an easy target. I'd say it seems that Philadelphia does not want to support the BSA's discrimination. ... The lease was in place since 1928 and all of a sudden, there's a salvo against the scouts. Because all of a sudden the BSA insisted it was a private organization that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and religion. If it were the other way around you'd be moaning and complaing about discrimination against your group. No, I wouldn't. The BSA is finally being treated the same as any similar group. People who want favoritism for their group inevitably find themselves being in the disfavored group at some point, and suddenly have to reverse gears. People like me, who want equal treatment, want it whether I'm in or out of the current group in vogue to favor, because I know the political winds will keep changing things, so the only way to go is no favoritism in the first place. I think I'll try to join MN Atheists and AA, that way I can try to get them to change their membership rules to allow Christians too. Good luck with that. But a quick check of both websites reveals that AA is very bitter, only a handfull of protestors show up at your events, I counted no more than 13 at any event. The godless Americans march on Washington in 2002 only had 13 people? Could have fooled me: http://www.atheists.org/gamow/rally/ By the way, are you implying that small groups of people don't have rights or something? Also, and this is the best part, your MN Atheists group membership is tax deductible, TAX DEDUCTIBLE????? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING, RIGHT? After all your complaing about the scouts getting "subsidized", you're taking a tax deduction? I challenge you to pay your fair share. I am. Any group like MN Atheists that meet the nonprofit and other requirements to be tax deductible can get it. Equal treatment and all that. Now, if Philadelphia had an unlimited supply of buildings that it could lease at under market rates to any number of groups, the BSA lease probably wouldn't be an issue, since any and all groups could get a publically subsidized building. But they don't.

Gonzo1 writes: It's too bad that the homosexual group in Philly can't be tolerant of the Boy Scouts. "Tolerant" in your definition seems to mean subsidizing the BSA with their tax money. You want to be a private organization? Be one. Pay market rates. Merlyn, what I don't understand is why, why you come here to this scout oriented forum when you are clearly not a scout(er). I've explained before I was a cub scout long ago. I'm also against my tax money used to support a supposedly private religious organization. Are you a member of some pro atheist group? If so, can I join? If not, why not? I'm a member of Scouting For All (which is pro-atheist in the sense that they advocate that the BSA be open to atheists), and yes, you can join them. I'm also a member of Minnesota Atheists, which is part of American Atheists, and no, you can't join them, because it's a private organization of atheists. You'll notice that AA doesn't leech off your public tax money the way the BSA leeches off my public tax money.

Gonzo1, no law was passed. The city council voted to end the lease; that isn't a law. And yes, people have been complaining to the city about how they're subsidizing a private religious organization.

Gonzo1 writes: Since the lease was originated in 1928, I doubt SERIOUSLY that anyone had a complaint about the BSA back then and if everything was otherwise hunkydory until now, why now? Because the BSA now insists it's a private, discriminatory organization, and the lease arrangement is in conflict with the city's Home Rule Charter and Fair Practices Ordinance. The city council has always had the power to end the lease, and they've decided to do just that. When did the Home Rule Charter and Fair Practices Ordinance come about? That's when the "ex post facto" comes into play. No, it doesn't. The city has ALWAYS had the power to end the lease. You really should've listened to yourself back when you said you aren't a lawyer. You aren't. And the ex post facto law you quoted is about criminal cases. This isn't a criminal case. It's about a city exercising their legal authority to end a lease.

I see both of you have already forgotten what I mentioned earlier in this same thread, where I pointed out that the anthrax attacks were after 9/11.

Gonzo1 writes: Shazzamm Merlyn! If we aren't safer afterall. Terrorist attacks tripled from 2004 to 2005, and from 2005 to 2006 they increased another 30%. I wouldn't call that "safer." There've been a lot of planned terrorist attacks that have been stopped in time; that doesn't mean terrorist attacks have decreased overall.

Gonzo1, there IS no "ex post facto" law. The city didn't change the lease, they've ALWAYS had the authority to end the lease with a year's notice.

Beavah writes: How ethical is it to change the terms of the entitlement by subsequent legislation? They never changed the terms; it's always had a 1-year cancellation clause. "in perpetuity" in a lease just means the lease doesn't need to be renewed every year/month. Such leases always have other ways to terminate, since they never lapse. This vote didn't change the terms, the city council has to vote to decide what to do. That's how a city council decides things. Can the Federal Government, by legislation, eliminate the Social Security entitlement to a person who they feel discriminates (even though that entitlement is also "in perpetuity" in exchange for prior compensation)? SS is not an entitlement granted "in perpetuity", and the terms on who receives benefits has changed many times over the years.

Gonzo1 writes: It doesn't matter if the council agrees with the rule or policy, that's just the way it is. Same with the Boy Scouts' lease; it goes against the city's Home Rule Charter and Fair Practices Ordinance. The city can't subsidize a discriminatory organization. I haven't had the opportunity to read the lease, if there is a one-year notice to terminate clause, then one year of notice should be provided, not a day less. A "notice of ejectment" was sent by City Solicitor Diaz on July 20, 2006.

Beavah writes: I expect they've also been maintainin' and renovatin' it, eh? That's not "peanuts." Compared to fair market value, it sure is. And at least some news accounts do support da notion that they built the building I think you're right; most news accounts just called it the city's building, but the page at http://www.parkwaycouncilfoundation.org/historyParkway.html says the Boy Scouts "opened their building" in 1930. Gonzo1 writes: So if I got this right, the Cradle of Liberty council could have the rent FREE (or peanuts) in perpetuity or until Philadelphia needs some cash. The lease has always had a 1-year notice to end the lease, but the city is doing this because there are a lot of people complaining about Philadelphia subsidizing a discriminatory organization. It's the discrimination that's forcing this. The C of L council doesn't even support the BSA's discrimination, but the national BSA requires them to discriminate.

This is old news, the city has been dragging its feet since 2003, and they're still thinking something can be "worked out" between a city policy that prohibits public subsidies to discriminatory organizations like the BSA, and the BSA insisting that all councils practice such discrimination. And the BSA didn't build the building, they've been leasing it for peanuts since 1928.

I'd like to know if any of the advocates of keeping Muslims out or restricting the rights of Muslims because of the 9/11 attack, are consistent and advocate similar restrictions on people who resemble those behind the previous "worst terrorist attack" (prior to Sept. 11, 2001)? And if not, why not?

ASM915, are you some kind of conspiracy nut? I've been correcting gross misinformation of well-known terrorist attacks and what Card told Bush after the second tower was hit. Maybe your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

uz2bnowl writes: We don't know what was whispered in GWB's ear Yes, we do (or at least people who have paid attention); the person who did the whispering was White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and it was widely reported that he told Bush "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Bush was told, specifically, that the US was under attack. He chose to do nothing. I think it took the Air traffic control folks more than seven minutes Read a timeline of the 9/11 events. NORAD found out about the third hijacked plane about six minutes after Card whispered in Bush's ear, but Bush was still reading a kid's book instead. My main thought with the initial comment was why are we reaching ot to a group when 40% of them think our nation is lying to it's people thinking that we could kill 3 or 4k of our own people. You are hardly one to complain about other people's ignorance.

Gonzo1 writes: Merlyn You must really be a lawyer. You have parced everything I said into what you want it to be. No, I parse things the way they're stated. Terrorism has DECREASED, ie, we haven't been attacked at home or at our embassies since 9/11 and neither has Spain or England or Australia and others as evidenced by thwarted attempts. This is flat-out wrong. The anthrax mail attacks started one week after 9/11. That was a terrorist attack against the US (still unsolved). On March 11, 2004, 191 people were killed when commuter trains in Madrid were bombed by Muslim terrorists. On July 7, 2005, 52 commuters were killed by bombs planted on the London Underground and an attack on a bus, again by Muslim terrorists. A few days later on the 21st there was another attempted attack, but the detonators failed to trigger the main charges and nobody was killed. al-Qaeda took credit for this attack on Sept 1, 2005. I don't know of any terrorist attacks in Australia since 9/11 offhand, but the Bali bombings on Oct 12, 2002, killed 88 Australians (out of 202 total killed). Again, a Muslim terrorist group. It's pointless to debate anything with you when you can't even remember terrorist attacks from just a few years ago that got immense, world-wide media coverage. I mean, it's one thing to argue that things are somehow "better", but you're contradicting reality to a ridiculous degree. I thank god every day for President Bush. He's not perfect, I don't agree with everything he says or does, but he is surely better than either Gore or Kerry. What would Gore or Kerry have done? Try to sit down and have coffee? Do you remember what Bush did when he first heard of the terrorist attack against the World Trade Center? After the second plane hit, so everyone knew it was a terrorist attack and not an accident? He did NOTHING for over 7 minutes. He was reading "The Pet Goat" with a grade school class. He was the ONLY person authorized at the time who could order a civilian airliner shot down (they have since changed this so other people can issue this order, in case we still have an incompetent president at the time). While he was reading a kid's book, the report of a third hijacked airliner came in from NORAD. To bad the president was completely worthless and neglecting his duties. He wasn't in touch with NORAD at the time, though he certainly could have been and ought to have been. Sorry, your hypothetical scare stories of what Gore or Kerry "might" have done pale in comparison to our actual, dengerously incompetent president. When America was under terrorist attack, he continued to READ A KID'S BOOK FOR SEVEN MINUTES. How incredibly stupid, negligent, and appallingly incompetent is that? If this was in a movie script, nobody would believe it. (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Gonzo1 writes: Merlyn, Oh nothing? Nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, no. Iraq was a breeding ground for terror. It still is; in fact, it's increased. A lot of countries are breeding grounds for terrorists; do we invade all of them? I'm sure you have as many firends serving today in Iraq as I do, (but really you probably don't) While I only know them through the internet, I'm a non-military member of MAAF, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, some of whom are deployed to Iraq and other places. and I can say with certainty that things are far better now than before when the murderous dictator (the beloved of the left media here) was in power. Terrorism has increased; I don't call that "better". And even granting your opinion as right (which I don't), that still doesn't show that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. How about getting Osama bin Laden? Shouldn't the US try to get him? Why is he still at large? smearing people? Yes. The only difference between Hitler and Saddam is time. And guess what, you dishonest Boy Scout, I don't think EITHER is a "good guy." Yet that doesn't stop you from lying and saying so. Of course, it fits in with your jingoistic "you're either with us or against us", and "against us" means differing in the slightest with our incompetent and lying President. It's not that Iraq had anything to do D I R E C T L Y with the 9/11 attack, but indirectly. So why did the Bush administration's statements confuse the public such that a huge number THOUGHT Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Why, it's as if the Bush admin. wanted to mislead the public so they'd be in favor of invading Iraq... Now, why has the Bush administration forgotten about getting bin Laden, who WAS directly involved with the 9/11 attack? Even granting your Republicant point-of-view that invading Iraq was a good idea, shouldn't the order of priority be: 1) those DIRECTLY responsible for the 9/11 attack 2) those INDIRECTLY responsible ?

uz2bnowl writes: What else would the VPOTUS say to a bunch of ring knockers? "Go forth and crochet!" Some of those folks are going to the meat grinder. So do you think it's proper for Cheney to falsely imply that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attack? Gonzo1 writes: Merlyn, "as if Iraq had something to do with that attack." Um, let's see, try UN Resolution 1441, try the surrender documents Iraq signed at the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and how IRAQ WOULD COMPLY WITH UN RESOLUTIONS ALLOWING WEAPONS INSPECTORS INTO IRAQ TO ENSURE THAT WMD WERE NOT BEING MADE OR STORED. And how does that show Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Oh, nothing. Aww never mind, you probably think Adolf Hitler was a good guy too. That's right, when you have no argument, just try smearing people. It is far better to have the fight over there than over here (again). We aren't ready to have car bombings going off at our nearby mall, are we? Or having the city bus blow up and so forth, are we? The invasion of Iraq didn't decrease terrorist activity, it made it worse. How is increasing terrorist activity "better"?

uz2bnowl, you're still trying to blame an entire segment of the population; most Muslim immigrants in the US are from south Asia and Africa. And as for 40% of Muslims in a survey believing something, compare that to the still large percentage of Americans who think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and how that percentage was much larger in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq due to the deliberate actions of the Bush administration, even though nearly all of the terrorists in the attack were from Saudi Arabia. And they're still doing it. Look at Cheney's commencement address at West Point earlier this week. He talks about the Iraq war and how we have to defend against terrorism like the 9/11 attack, as if Iraq had something to do with that attack. You're "Let's say that .05% of the Muslims in America will do us harm" is a meaningless scare tactic. You could put "Jews" or "Christians" or "atheists" or "Communists" or "Liberals" or "Conservatives" or any other label in that sentence in place of "Muslims" and it would still be true, because it doesn't mean anything.

OK, so it looks like Muslims are the next group to get kicked out of the BSA. Who's next? As for immigration, aren't you forgetting the yellow peril?

North was a scout, according to various newspaper & book excerpts.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1179024940100300.xml&coll=1 ... In Derry Twp. last night for a fundraiser for the Keystone Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America, North said his record does not conflict with Scout values. "I carried out the lawful orders of my superiors to the best of my ability," North said before heading to a dinner for about 300. "It was a long, painful ordeal for my family. Do I look back on that with any degree of 'shoulda-woulda-coulda'? One of the things that scouting teaches you is, you trip and fall on one of those long hikes, you get back up, dust yourself off and catch up." ... He seems to have forgotten that he admitted he lied to congress.

OGE, the "Deutsche Physik" movement in Germany in the 1930s rejected the "Jewish science" of Relativity, as that lead to moral relativism.

Judge Manning's ruling didn't accept those reasons, but she still found the legislation creating support for the jamboree to be unconstitutional, because it was only for a religious organization.