On May 28, 7:53*am, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent









atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? * That's where I have a problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult leadership.

;
Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted 61% in
favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

;
I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups". Idiot.


Really! Sounds interesting.

Also sounds as if you are more aware,
in depth, of the behind-the-scenes political
maneuvering than I have been able to find in the media
reports I've read.

So, spill the beans! Tell us, by name, which pressure
groups were involved, and what was the exact nature of
the pressure they could bring against BSA representatives
(supposedly the embodiment of courage and truth) that
could force them to vote against their own principles?



NBL

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:51:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:52:36 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:58:41 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:13:03 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:50:24 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 24, 5:36*am, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
*Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are still
a bigoted organization.

--

JD



It's so the perverts/paedos of America can get better access to
potential victims.


It seems like they've had pretty good access under the homophobic rules.

...and it can only get better with those attracted to the only sex
that is in Scouts?

An openly gay "trusted member of the community" is not any more likely to be a
pedophile than any other "trusted member of the community."

Utter nonsense. The issue isn't "gay", rather sex. It has no
business in Boy Scouts, which is why they banned women from
leadership.


You're truly are thick.. I just explained it to you and not one bit sank in

If you think about it, from your own response, a gay scoutmaster would have a
giant flag on his head, but the guy pretending to be heterosexual with a wife
and kids might get all the trust and access he needs.

You really are an idiot. He *was* married, and *had* children. He
*WAS* gay.

You're comments reveal that you are the one with a much better shot at the
title.

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a debilitating
condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way NOT having Alzheimer's
disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any gods until an
adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make you believe that
gods are real. And of course, young children are vulnerable to this sort of
brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there must
be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe learning disability
to continue spewing ad hominem after it was explained to you how poorly this
reflects on your ability to debate.

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" wrote in message news:20130528172800.6b93d670d2ddfa31b812b4ad@fidem turbare.com...
On Sat, 25 May 2013 23:43:43 -0700
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article 20130525232535.25cca3d6a8d8426384af6b87@fidemturb are.com,
Fidem TurbÄ_re, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 19:13:28 -0700
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Brother Love wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:02:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
On May 24, 7:20�am, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
�J wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:38:11 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013
| | [christmas presents]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:28:00 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 23:43:43 -0700
Jeanne Douglas wrote:



Based on how you write, and what you write about, I would have
expected you to have scored higher. What happened? Were there
distractions during the test?

Paul Newman was on The Tonight Show that Friday night, so I only got
4 hours of sleep before taking all 5 tests.

Make sure you buy his sauces at the grocery store -- he donates a lot
of money to excellent social and community causes, as I understand it.

Somewhere I read that as a percentage of his income, he is
the most generous Hollywood star ever. Certainly, by 2010,
the charity funded by his sauces disbursed more than $300
million.

On 5/29/2013 7:14 AM, Alex W. wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:28:00 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 23:43:43 -0700
Jeanne Douglas wrote:



Based on how you write, and what you write about, I would have
expected you to have scored higher. What happened? Were there
distractions during the test?

Paul Newman was on The Tonight Show that Friday night, so I only got
4 hours of sleep before taking all 5 tests.

Make sure you buy his sauces at the grocery store -- he donates a lot
of money to excellent social and community causes, as I understand it.

Somewhere I read that as a percentage of his income, he is
the most generous Hollywood star ever. Certainly, by 2010,
the charity funded by his sauces disbursed more than $300
million.

Since he passed away in 2008, he set up a charity that carries on his
good work.

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:20:51 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:51:11 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:52:36 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:58:41 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:13:03 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:50:24 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:
On May 24, 5:36*am, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
*Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts
are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD



It's so the perverts/paedos of America can get better access to
potential victims.


It seems like they've had pretty good access under the homophobic
rules.

...and it can only get better with those attracted to the only sex
that is in Scouts?

An openly gay "trusted member of the community" is not any more
likely to be a pedophile than any other "trusted member of the
community."

Utter nonsense. The issue isn't "gay", rather sex. It has no
business in Boy Scouts, which is why they banned women from
leadership.

Are you implying that the women were distracting some of the young Boy
Scouts as they were going through puberty and becoming more aware of
their natural sexuality? If the Boy Scouts, as an organization which
espouses ideals such as self-discipline, can't handle a little dose of
reality, then apparently the problem is much more serious than it first
appeared on the surface.

My main point is that you lefties are completely clueless. That being
a given, Boy Scouts is not about sex. Self discipline doesn't imply
infallibility. Only the lefty religion believes in infallibility (of
government).

If you think about it, from your own response, a gay scoutmaster
would have a giant flag on his head, but the guy pretending to be
heterosexual with a wife and kids might get all the trust and access
he needs.

You really are an idiot.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

Except that you really *are* an idiot. I can't help it if the facts
offend you.

He *was* married, and *had* children. He *WAS* gay.

So by your implication, he and his husband must have adopted and/or had
a surrogate mother to have children? That's wonderful, particularly if
they adopted because there are so many kids without parents these days.

You really don't have to prove how incredibly stupid you are. Everyone
here has known it for some time.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 02:46:05 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:51:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:52:36 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:58:41 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:13:03 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:50:24 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 24, 5:36*am, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
*Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are still
a bigoted organization.

--

JD



It's so the perverts/paedos of America can get better access to
potential victims.


It seems like they've had pretty good access under the homophobic rules.

...and it can only get better with those attracted to the only sex
that is in Scouts?

An openly gay "trusted member of the community" is not any more likely to be a
pedophile than any other "trusted member of the community."

Utter nonsense. The issue isn't "gay", rather sex. It has no
business in Boy Scouts, which is why they banned women from
leadership.


You're truly are thick.. I just explained it to you and not one bit sank in

You "explained" nothing. You're too stupid.

If you think about it, from your own response, a gay scoutmaster would have a
giant flag on his head, but the guy pretending to be heterosexual with a wife
and kids might get all the trust and access he needs.

You really are an idiot. He *was* married, and *had* children. He
*WAS* gay.

You're comments reveal that you are the one with a much better shot at the
title.

You really are a loser. No wonder you're a lefty.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's where I have a problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted 61% in
favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber than a
stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and contribute to it
while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist in both
the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government spends on
such things the private sector cannot spend two. You really are a
dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project. The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

On Tue, 28 May 2013 23:41:52 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
wrote:

On May 28, 7:53*am, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent









atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? * That's where I have a problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult leadership.

;
Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted 61% in
favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

;
I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups". Idiot.


Really! Sounds interesting.

Fact.

Also sounds as if you are more aware,
in depth, of the behind-the-scenes political
maneuvering than I have been able to find in the media
reports I've read.

You can't read. That's no surprise.

So, spill the beans! Tell us, by name, which pressure
groups were involved, and what was the exact nature of
the pressure they could bring against BSA representatives
(supposedly the embodiment of courage and truth) that
could force them to vote against their own principles?

Corporate America. Intel had already dropped all support. Many
others were threatening because of the threats they had had.

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:08:16 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:55:29 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:52:13 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:05 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:11:07 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130523234312.18c11ed8fac99ed2d628a706@fide mturbare.com...
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts
are still a bigoted organization.

The fact that they had to take it to a vote seems strange to me,
but it's good to know that 39% of the upper echelon are still
anti-gay.

It's disappointing that people give as much respect to The Boy
Scouts as they do. The organization is defective and needs new
leadership that respects and embraces the personal freedoms of
its membership.

You always have the choice of joining and trying to change it
Alternately you can start something equivalent modified to meet
your standards.

We will see that happen now.

What's your prediction?

They go broke and fall to 1/4 their current size.

I'll accept your prediction if you can put a date on it (or a
reasonable date range, e.g., within the next 5 years).

Five years ought to do it. The fourth largest church has already
terminated their relationship with the BSA.

Always funny to see people come along and criticize a group of
people who join together for whatever reasons , that don't meet
the critics' standards.

Lefties *NEED* to control others.

You're confusing leftwing and rightwing politics.

No, I know an idiot lefty when I see one. You know, that Moron in
Chief who has the "most transparent government in history".

Who? Chairman Mao?

It's not surprising that you would think he was your leader. It
really isn't.

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack does not help your position.

No ad hominem at all. Fact.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Ben Kaufman" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:

"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so why must
Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a debilitating
condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way NOT having Alzheimer's
disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any gods until an
adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make you believe that
gods are real. And of course, young children are vulnerable to this sort of
brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there must
be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe learning disability
to continue spewing ad hominem after it was explained to you how poorly this
reflects on your ability to debate.

You really are stupid! After having it explained to you, you repeat
the same stupid remark. I suppose you think the world will change
because *you* think it should. What a dumb****!

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts
are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because you
weren't allowed to join because of what you have between your
legs? Or was it because of what you don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better organization
than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get into
Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as you're not
trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the psychological
health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Idiot.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position, and it
provides and indication of anger and frustration on your part which I
hope you won't express as violence against any people or animals.

No, you lefties are just too damned stupid to see just how damned
stupid you are. You prove it to others daily, though.

I recommend you go outside and walk around your neighbourhood for 10
minutes to cool down before you continue. The reason is that people
who get angry in the manner you've exhibited are at risk of "snapping,"
which can have long-lasting or permanent effects on one's character.

Once again, a lefty thinks he knows everything about others but in
reality doesn't even know how ****in' stupid he is.

On Tue, 28 May 2013 18:30:06 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:01:58 -0700
"%" wrote:
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts
are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because
you weren't allowed to join because of what you have between
your legs? Or was it because of what you don't have between
your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better organization
than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get
into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as you're
not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the psychological
health of modern societies.

Idiot.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position, and it
provides and indication of anger and frustration on your part which
I hope you won't express as violence against any people or animals.

I recommend you go outside and walk around your neighbourhood for 10
minutes to cool down before you continue. The reason is that people
who get angry in the manner you've exhibited are at risk of
"snapping," which can have long-lasting or permanent effects on
one's character.

how nice of you to try to impose your values on others

I wasn't trying to be nice.

What the **** makes you thing I want to be nice to you, dumb****?

In what manner do you believe I was
"imposing," and which "values" are you referring to?

What a dummy.

By the way, you won't snap as easily because you're passive-aggressive.

You *do* have a mirror.

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:47:29 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:18:31 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:48:00 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:27 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts
are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because
you weren't allowed to join because of what you have between
your legs? Or was it because of what you don't have between
your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better organization
than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get into
Boy Scouts? Boy Scouts has a much larger and stronger
organization, with more programs, camps, and outings.

If girls really were trying to get into the Boy Scouts,

They are.

Can you prove that?

they'd most
likely be Catholic Girls coveting some new "experiences." If their
motives were purely to become Scouts, then your suggestion seems
ludicrous because there's another very similar organization which is
famously known as "Girl Scouts."

A poor imitation. But do pay attention (I know you're stupid, but
try). That's what the thread is about.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

Even after having it explained to you, you're to stupid to get it and
think you have to repeat yourself. What a dumb****!

With regard to the Boy Scouts being a "stronger organization," that's
just a reflection of the behaviour exhibited by those who feel
threatened by homosexuality (even though a person's private sexual
encounters really are none of their business).

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

See above, dumb****.

Completely irrelevant and wrong (but that's to be expected).

It is relevant because a fear of homosexuality has been a serious
hinderance to the reputation of the Boy Scouts as an organization.

There is no fear, dumb****. The fear is in your remaining neuron,
which is obviously getting quite lonely.

Additionally, I contend that I am correct with regards to a person's
private sexual encounters being a matter that doesn't concern the Boy
Scouts, and I disagree with you that the inverse is expected.

It never did. Only their public actions. You really are stupid!

Sadly, our troop leader was a bitch who favored her daughter and
her buddies over the rest of the troop, so I dropped out as soon
as I was allowed.

You learned well.

That's not a matter of learning, rather it's a matter of exercising
judgement based on values of fairness.

Being a bitch? You should know. You're hers.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack confirms that you feel threatened and
angered, most likely because you know that you're wrong. If you didn't
feel intimidated by your error, the need to respond ad hominem would be
non-existent (that last word is meaningful to me).

Not at all "fallacious" (you must have had mommy look that one up for
you). You really are her bitch, dumb****.

Do you feel intimidated when other people exercise judgement based on
values of fairness because it's not consistent with the various
religious delusions that many people suffer from?

Once again you show exactly how self-important you lefty loons are. I
bet your only grade is school was "present". What a dumb****.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's where I have a problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted 61% in
favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber than a
stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and contribute to it
while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist in both
the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government spends on
such things the private sector cannot spend two. You really are a
dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because
you weren't allowed to join because of what you have between
your legs? Or was it because of what you don't have between
your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better organization
than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get
into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as you're
not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the psychological
health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on discriminatory
ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Idiot.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position, and it
provides and indication of anger and frustration on your part which I
hope you won't express as violence against any people or animals.

No, you lefties are just too damned stupid to see just how damned
stupid you are. You prove it to others daily, though.

How does a non-existent atheist goddess prove anything?

I recommend you go outside and walk around your neighbourhood for 10
minutes to cool down before you continue. The reason is that people
who get angry in the manner you've exhibited are at risk of
"snapping," which can have long-lasting or permanent effects on
one's character.

Once again, a lefty thinks he knows everything about others but in
reality doesn't even know how ****in' stupid he is.

Perhaps you should have gone for a longer walk.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"People get out for many reasons, not only to enjoy drinks and smokes."
-- Buster Cherry (January 15, 2013)

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:01:40 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 18:30:06 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:01:58 -0700
"%" wrote:
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you don't
have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get
into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around
you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

Idiot.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position,
and it provides and indication of anger and frustration on your
part which I hope you won't express as violence against any
people or animals.

I recommend you go outside and walk around your neighbourhood
for 10 minutes to cool down before you continue. The reason is
that people who get angry in the manner you've exhibited are at
risk of "snapping," which can have long-lasting or permanent
effects on one's character.

how nice of you to try to impose your values on others

I wasn't trying to be nice.

What the **** makes you thing I want to be nice to you, dumb****?

This wasn't about you wanting to be nice, nor have I presented any such
suggestion of expecting you trying to be nice (because I'm not aware of
any evidence that you would be able to satisfy that expectation).

In what manner do you believe I was
"imposing," and which "values" are you referring to?

What a dummy.

Could you be more specific? It's not immediately clear how being a
dummy is either an imposition or a value.

By the way, you won't snap as easily because you're
passive-aggressive.

You *do* have a mirror.

No, not at this moment. (There is one in the other room though, but
that's entirely incidental.)

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"..., there's more life in the average vacuum cleaner bag than there is
between your ears."
-- Captain Merca (January 26, 2013; responding to an idiot)

On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman" wrote
in message ...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so
why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way NOT
having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any gods
until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make you
believe that gods are real. And of course, young children are
vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there must
be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe learning
disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was explained to
you how poorly this reflects on your ability to debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Theists want simple answers to complex questions. This is exactly
what theism has been providing for millennia."
-- Josef Balluch (February 13, 2013)

On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:55:38 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:08:16 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:55:29 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:52:13 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:05 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:11:07 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130523234312.18c11ed8fac99ed2d628a706@fide mturbare.com...
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

The fact that they had to take it to a vote seems strange to
me, but it's good to know that 39% of the upper echelon are
still anti-gay.

It's disappointing that people give as much respect to The
Boy Scouts as they do. The organization is defective and
needs new leadership that respects and embraces the personal
freedoms of its membership.

You always have the choice of joining and trying to change it
Alternately you can start something equivalent modified to meet
your standards.

We will see that happen now.

What's your prediction?

They go broke and fall to 1/4 their current size.

I'll accept your prediction if you can put a date on it (or a
reasonable date range, e.g., within the next 5 years).

Five years ought to do it. The fourth largest church has already
terminated their relationship with the BSA.

Prediction accepted.

Notes for the alt.atheism FAQ: A "predictions" section should be
created to make it easy to track and follow up on predictions like this.

Contributors to the alt.atheism FAQ: What are you thoughts on this?

Always funny to see people come along and criticize a group of
people who join together for whatever reasons , that don't meet
the critics' standards.

Lefties *NEED* to control others.

You're confusing leftwing and rightwing politics.

No, I know an idiot lefty when I see one. You know, that Moron in
Chief who has the "most transparent government in history".

Who? Chairman Mao?

It's not surprising that you would think he was your leader. It
really isn't.

I didn't claim that he was my leader. (I'm not a submissive follower.)

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack does not help your position.

No ad hominem at all. Fact.

I challenge you to prove your claim that your "ad hominem attack is a
fact." If you fail to satisfy your burden of proof, then your claim
shall remain "unproven."

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Reality and your perception of it don't seem to be close relatives."
-- Ray Banana

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald

wrote:

On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal

wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's where I have a
problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult
leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted
61% in
favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups".
Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber than
a
stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and contribute to
it
while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist in
both
the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government spends on
such things the private sector cannot spend two. You really are a
dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.


The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

So when are you going to stop being a stupid reactionary ?
We're all waiting for it to happen.

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130529183029.f6b207cb2aa75cb3a400983e@fidem turbare.com...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because
you weren't allowed to join because of what you have between
your legs? Or was it because of what you don't have between
your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better organization
than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get
into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as you're
not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the psychological
health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on discriminatory
ideals are beneficial to modern societies?


Are you claiming to be an "organizations founded on discriminatory ideals "
?

On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's
where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber
than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist
in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or enhance
public areas (such as highways) that also benefit civilians. This, of
course, by no means vilifies the projects since they are paid for with
tax revenues and are of benefit to taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that government
employs a lot of competent people who do excellent work. If this
wasn't the case, then the government would fail. Sure, it's slightly
heavier on the paperwork side than most commercial organizations, but
there's an accountability factor there that many commercial entities
don't have to adhere to because they're structured differently.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is
enshrined in our constitution and our law, and we do not stop
individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how
distasteful they may be. There are of course different views around
the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression,
but there should be no debate about the simple proposition that
'violence in response to speech' is not acceptable. We all, weather we
are leaders in government, leaders in civil society, or religious
leaders, must draw the line at violence, and any responsible leader
should be standing up now and drawing that line."
-- Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, in her official role as
67th USA Secretary of State (September 11, 2012)

On Wed, 29 May 2013 07:54:41 -0400
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130528172800.6b93d670d2ddfa31b812b4ad@fidem turbare.com... On
Sat, 25 May 2013 23:43:43 -0700 Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
20130525232535.25cca3d6a8d8426384af6b87@fidemturb are.com, Fidem
TurbÄ_re, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 19:13:28 -0700
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
Brother Love wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:02:46 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
On May 24, 7:20�am, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
�J wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:38:11 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013
| | [christmas presents]

Call them "Happy Hitchmas presents" and you'll get my vote:

Happy Hitchmas: http://www.hitchmas.com/

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald

wrote:

On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal

wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's where I have a
problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult
leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted
61% in
favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups".
Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber than
a
stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and contribute to
it
while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist in
both
the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government spends on
such things the private sector cannot spend two. You really are a
dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

It *WAS* a defense project. It's economic benefits were a secondary
consideration.


Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Excellent simile.

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the moon"

Less direct but also to the point.

What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Usually by accident. Central planning just simply doesn't work.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

So when are you going to stop being a stupid reactionary ?
We're all waiting for it to happen.

I'm certainly under no delusion lefties will ever learn anything.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:48:53 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:55:38 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:08:16 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:55:29 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:52:13 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:05 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:11:07 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130523234312.18c11ed8fac99ed2d628a706@fide mturbare.com...
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

The fact that they had to take it to a vote seems strange to
me, but it's good to know that 39% of the upper echelon are
still anti-gay.

It's disappointing that people give as much respect to The
Boy Scouts as they do. The organization is defective and
needs new leadership that respects and embraces the personal
freedoms of its membership.

You always have the choice of joining and trying to change it
Alternately you can start something equivalent modified to meet
your standards.

We will see that happen now.

What's your prediction?

They go broke and fall to 1/4 their current size.

I'll accept your prediction if you can put a date on it (or a
reasonable date range, e.g., within the next 5 years).

Five years ought to do it. The fourth largest church has already
terminated their relationship with the BSA.

Prediction accepted.

Notes for the alt.atheism FAQ: A "predictions" section should be
created to make it easy to track and follow up on predictions like this.

Contributors to the alt.atheism FAQ: What are you thoughts on this?

Who the **** cares about alt.atheism? ...or anything about atheism.
What a bunch of losers! That you have to defer to them speaks volumes
about your intelligence.


Always funny to see people come along and criticize a group of
people who join together for whatever reasons , that don't meet
the critics' standards.

Lefties *NEED* to control others.

You're confusing leftwing and rightwing politics.

No, I know an idiot lefty when I see one. You know, that Moron in
Chief who has the "most transparent government in history".

Who? Chairman Mao?

It's not surprising that you would think he was your leader. It
really isn't.

I didn't claim that he was my leader. (I'm not a submissive follower.)

You did, but you're too stupid to read. Nothing unexpected.

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack does not help your position.

No ad hominem at all. Fact.

I challenge you to prove your claim that your "ad hominem attack is a
fact." If you fail to satisfy your burden of proof, then your claim
shall remain "unproven."

I don't have to prove it. You do it yourself with every post. I just
point out the obvious. What a dumb****.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman" wrote
in message ...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so
why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way NOT
having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any gods
until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make you
believe that gods are real. And of course, young children are
vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there must
be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe learning
disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was explained to
you how poorly this reflects on your ability to debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Once again you prove just how illiterate you are. What a dumb****.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 22:57:21 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:

On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald

wrote:

On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal

wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with transgenders
wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's where I have a
problem
deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer adult
leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who voted
61% in
favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure groups".
Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber than
a
stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and contribute to
it
while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist in
both
the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government spends on
such things the private sector cannot spend two. You really are a
dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

It *WAS* a defense project. It's economic benefits were a secondary
consideration.

It was called that to keep the idiots like Taft from messing it up.

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Excellent simile.

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the moon"

Less direct but also to the point.

What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Usually by accident. Central planning just simply doesn't work.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

So when are you going to stop being a stupid reactionary ?
We're all waiting for it to happen.

I'm certainly under no delusion lefties will ever learn anything.

You have made it clear that you will never learn enough to be in the
position to critique what others know.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:06:38 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:47:29 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:18:31 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:48:00 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the non-existent
atheist goddess wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:33:27 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it because
you weren't allowed to join because of what you have between
your legs? Or was it because of what you don't have between
your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to get
into Boy Scouts? Boy Scouts has a much larger and stronger
organization, with more programs, camps, and outings.

If girls really were trying to get into the Boy Scouts,

They are.

Can you prove that?

they'd most
likely be Catholic Girls coveting some new "experiences." If
their motives were purely to become Scouts, then your suggestion
seems ludicrous because there's another very similar organization
which is famously known as "Girl Scouts."

A poor imitation. But do pay attention (I know you're stupid, but
try). That's what the thread is about.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

Even after having it explained to you, you're to stupid to get it and
think you have to repeat yourself. What a dumb****!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack, which includes a spelling error,
doesn't help your credibility.

With regard to the Boy Scouts being a "stronger organization,"
that's just a reflection of the behaviour exhibited by those who
feel threatened by homosexuality (even though a person's private
sexual encounters really are none of their business).

Idiot.

Your unsubstantiated ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

See above, dumb****.

Ditto.

Completely irrelevant and wrong (but that's to be expected).

It is relevant because a fear of homosexuality has been a serious
hinderance to the reputation of the Boy Scouts as an organization.

There is no fear, dumb****.

It appears that 39% of the Boy Scouts might be homophobic.

The fear is in your remaining neuron, which is obviously getting
quite lonely.

What part of the concept of "non-existence" is it that's most troubling
for you?

Additionally, I contend that I am correct with regards to a person's
private sexual encounters being a matter that doesn't concern the Boy
Scouts, and I disagree with you that the inverse is expected.

It never did. Only their public actions.

What public actions? Were they publicly engaging in sexual intercourse
while also representing the Boy Scouts? If not, then it shouldn't be
an issue for the Boy Scouts as an organization.

You really are stupid!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.

Sadly, our troop leader was a bitch who favored her daughter
and her buddies over the rest of the troop, so I dropped out
as soon as I was allowed.

You learned well.

That's not a matter of learning, rather it's a matter of
exercising judgement based on values of fairness.

Being a bitch? You should know. You're hers.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack confirms that you feel threatened
and angered, most likely because you know that you're wrong. If you
didn't feel intimidated by your error, the need to respond ad
hominem would be non-existent (that last word is meaningful to me).

Not at all "fallacious" (you must have had mommy look that one up for
you). You really are her bitch, dumb****.

Can you substantiate your claim that I have a mommy and that she looked
up the word "fallacious" for me?

Your use of profanities to express your anger and frustration when
presenting fallacious assertions doesn't help your argument.

Do you feel intimidated when other people exercise judgement based on
values of fairness because it's not consistent with the various
religious delusions that many people suffer from?

Once again you show exactly how self-important you lefty loons are.

I did not claim to be important, and your fallacious ad hominem
attacks don't help your argument.

I bet your only grade is school was "present". What a dumb****.

Your implicit offer to engage in gambling is not accepted because your
fallacious ad hominem attack that follows in the next sentence fails to
add meaningful value to this social intercourse we're engaging in.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"If you wake up tomorrow morning, thinking that saying a few Latin
words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis
Presley, you have lost your mind, but if you think, more or less, the
same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you're just a
Catholic."
-- Sam Harris

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:02 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130529183029.f6b207cb2aa75cb3a400983e@fidem turbare.com...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around
you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Are you claiming to be an "organizations founded on discriminatory
ideals " ?

No (I also do not claim to be an organization).

You have not answered my question, to which I still request an answer.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"My calculations show that even if God dedicated all of his time
meeting the dead, you would only get to meet him for half of one
second. There are 56 million deaths occurring annually and only 32
million seconds in a year."
-- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason ("The Pope is Humpty Dumpty")

On Wed, 29 May 2013 23:04:52 -0400
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman" wrote
in message ...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so
why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way NOT
having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make
you believe that gods are real. And of course, young children are
vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there
must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Once again you prove just how illiterate you are.

Please clarify what you mean by "illiterate." The reason I make this
request is that I suspect you aren't conforming to the common
comprehension of it as an inability to communicate in written form (by
reading or writing) by using at least one intelligible language.

What a dumb****.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

--
Fidem Turb�re, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position."
-- Bill Maher

On this thread, we have fellatio ad homosexual attacks.
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" wrote in message news:20130530003904.71e64f1e0a9bfc5f1f1631da@fidem turbare.com...


Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.

Even after having it explained to you, you're to stupid to get it and
think you have to repeat yourself. What a dumb****!

Your fallacious ad hominem attack, which includes a spelling error,
doesn't help your credibility.

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 22:57:21 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch

wrote:

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist in
both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two.
You really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

It *WAS* a defense project. It's economic benefits were a secondary
consideration.

It was called that to keep the idiots like Taft from messing it up.

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Excellent simile.

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the
moon"

Less direct but also to the point.

What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Usually by accident. Central planning just simply doesn't work.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

So when are you going to stop being a stupid reactionary ?
We're all waiting for it to happen.

I'm certainly under no delusion lefties will ever learn anything.

You have made it clear that you will never learn enough to be in the
position to critique what others know.


Did you look in a mirror again ?

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530004058.7ef504e6b1ae6dbfa4d29a86@fidem turbare.com...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:12:02 -0500
"Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130529183029.f6b207cb2aa75cb3a400983e@fidem turbare.com...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:00:18 -0400
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:54:15 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:16:22 -0400
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 10:46:34 -0500, Mitchell Holman
nomailverizon.net wrote:
wrote in
news On Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:00 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article ,
Alfred E. Newman wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
wrote:
In article
,
Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...boy-scouts-vot
e-to- lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy
Scouts are still a bigoted organization.

--

JD

Jeanne, why do you say they are still bigoted? Is it
because you weren't allowed to join because of what you
have between your legs? Or was it because of what you
don't have between your ears?

I had the Girl Scouts available to me. A FAR better
organization than the Boy Scouts.

Nonsense. If that's true, why are so many girls trying to
get into Boy Scouts?


Who says they are?

I wouldn't expect you to know anything that's going on around
you.

Your expectations are not a problem for atheists, so long as
you're not trying to impose your values on others.

Boy Scouts AND Girl Scouts are shrinking even
as the population of young teens is growing. They
are shrinking into irrelevancy.

...and you rejoice.

Actually, the elimination of organizations that are founded on
discriminatory ideals is of tremendous benefit to the
psychological health of modern societies.

By that "logic", you should be eliminated.

Does that mean you believe that organizations founded on
discriminatory ideals are beneficial to modern societies?

Are you claiming to be an "organizations founded on discriminatory
ideals " ?

No (I also do not claim to be an organization).


Yet you are
An organization of cooperating cells.


You have not answered my question, to which I still request an answer.


What ?
You imagine that you are "owed" an answer ?
Good luck with that..
IN the meantime I'm just using your own tactics of fallacious questions and
strawman arguments against you.

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote in message
news:20130530004650.7bab5b0d9a42e3ee5d5b1dba@fidem turbare.com...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 23:04:52 -0400
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman" wrote
in message ...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so
why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way NOT
having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any
gods until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make
you believe that gods are real. And of course, young children are
vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there
must be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe
learning disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was
explained to you how poorly this reflects on your ability to
debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Once again you prove just how illiterate you are.

Please clarify what you mean by "illiterate." The reason I make this
request is that I suspect you aren't conforming to the common
comprehension of it as an inability to communicate in written form (by
reading or writing) by using at least one intelligible language.


Illiterate at it's root, means not able to read
But it also means uneducated. from not doing much reading.


What a dumb****.

Your fallacious ad hominem attack doesn't help your position.


It was a declarative statement,not an ad hom

On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:46:16 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 02:46:05 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:51:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 25 May 2013 16:52:36 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 23:58:41 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:13:03 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:50:24 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On May 24, 5:36*am, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
In article ,
*Mitchell Holman nomailverizon.net wrote:

Boy Scouts vote to lift ban on gay youth
May 23 2013

GRAPEVINE, Texas -- The Boy Scouts of America voted
Thursday to end its controversial policy banning gay
kids and teens from joining one of the nation's most
popular youth organizations, ditching membership
guidelines that had roiled the group in recent years.
Over 61 percent of Scouting's National Council of 1,400
delegates from across the country voted to lift the ban,
BSA officials said. The final tally was 757 yes votes,
to 475 no.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...couts-vote-to-
lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

It's about ****ing time!

Next step is to allow atheists. Until that day, the Boy Scouts are still
a bigoted organization.

--

JD



It's so the perverts/paedos of America can get better access to
potential victims.


It seems like they've had pretty good access under the homophobic rules.

...and it can only get better with those attracted to the only sex
that is in Scouts?

An openly gay "trusted member of the community" is not any more likely to be a
pedophile than any other "trusted member of the community."

Utter nonsense. The issue isn't "gay", rather sex. It has no
business in Boy Scouts, which is why they banned women from
leadership.


You're truly are thick.. I just explained it to you and not one bit sank in

You "explained" nothing. You're too stupid.

If you think about it, from your own response, a gay scoutmaster would have a
giant flag on his head, but the guy pretending to be heterosexual with a wife
and kids might get all the trust and access he needs.

You really are an idiot. He *was* married, and *had* children. He
*WAS* gay.

You're comments reveal that you are the one with a much better shot at the
title.

You really are a loser. No wonder you're a lefty.


Another pathetic troll (or sock puppet).

On Wed, 29 May 2013 18:42:27 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 03:05:42 -0400
Ben Kaufman wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:58:46 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 08:22:37 -0400, Ben Kaufman
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 22:27:54 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Ben Kaufman" wrote
in message ...
On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:34:11 -0500, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
"Not X" wrote in message
...
On 05/24/2013 08:20 AM, PV wrote:

[snip]

Sexual orientation is not a choice, however atheism is, so
why must Scouts
change to accommodate those that choose atheism?


Atheism is simply the state of NOT being afflicted by a
debilitating condition. It is NOT a choice, the same way NOT
having Alzheimer's disease
isn't a choice.


You are not born atheist
It's a choice you make somewhere along the way.

Actually, you were born atheist. You didn't believe in any gods
until an adult
spoon fed it to you as the facts.



NOPE !
You were born a blank page
That means at best you were born agnostic.

Get yourself a dictionary and learn the meaning of words


Nope, you can't even be an agnostic until someone tries to make you
believe that gods are real. And of course, young children are
vulnerable to this sort of brain washing.

You're born caring whether there is a God? That means that there must
be a God. God, you're an idiot!

You have zero reading comprehension, and an apparent severe learning
disability to continue spewing ad hominem after it was explained to
you how poorly this reflects on your ability to debate.

He was debating? I thought he was seeking an education.

Apparently at Troll University. Now, no longer wasting my time.

On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:20:31 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:



Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that government
employs a lot of competent people who do excellent work. If this
wasn't the case, then the government would fail. Sure, it's slightly
heavier on the paperwork side than most commercial organizations, but
there's an accountability factor there that many commercial entities
don't have to adhere to because they're structured differently.

Not sure I can agree with your comment on accountability.
True, the political leadership is accountable through
regular judgment by the electorate.

This, however, does not hold true for the civil service.
State employees generally work in a blessed state of
unaccountability: whatever they do and however badly they
cock things up, they can and do hide behind regulations,
departmental policies and practices, referral to other
offices and departments, etc. Effectively, the civil
servant's personal responsibility and with it his
accountability are diluted to the point of non-existence.
The guy in middle management who seriously miscalculated the
cost of a new plant will find himself held accountable by
his superiors and shareholders in very short order and will
probably be sent to explore exciting career enhancement
opportunities at monster.com -- but the civil servant who
does the same mistake with a new school or bridge will fac
no such censure or threat to his job. How many officials do
you think stand to be demoted or lose their jobs over the
collapse of the I-5 bridge north of Seattle?

On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:10:31 -0500, Attila Iskander wrote:

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in alt.atheism:


Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel infrastructure.


It was both
They are NOT mutually exclusive

Just look at another military funded project that is in common PUBLIC use
today
The Internet

Just look al all the spin-off that came from Kennedy's "going to the moon"


What people like you don't grasp is that the indirect benefits of such
projects are otten greater than the original purpose.

Got another one: the Hoover Dam. The construction cost at
the time was less than $50 million (around $800 million in
today's tax dollars). Benefits, however, are HUGE: from
providing water to 8 million people and irrigating a million
acres of farmland to an electricity-generating capacity in
excess of 2,000MW and creating commercial opportunities
(tourism and leisure activities).

On 5/29/2013 9:20 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:18:56 -0500
Free Lunch wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:49:33 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Wed, 29 May 2013 00:27:19 +0100, "Alex W."
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:19:09 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:58:02 -0500, Free Lunch
wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:56:29 -0400, wrote in
alt.atheism:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:28:22 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:57:09 -0500, Tom McDonald
wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:53 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 17:00:56 -0700, Fidem Turb?re, the
non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2013 00:01:11 -0400
wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:07:19 -0700, linuxgal
wrote:
Doug wrote:

Now taking to the next level, what do we do with
transgenders wanting to be in the boy scouts? That's
where I have a problem deciding.

"We" don't do anything, it's for the Boy Scouts to
decide.

...and pay the consequences, either way.

Though watch, they will now be forced to allow queer
adult leadership.

Do you mean "forced" by their democratic membership who
voted 61% in favour of it? Yeah, in that case I suppose
you're correct.

I'm sure you're too stupid to have heard of "pressure
groups". Idiot.

Like me, a straight, male Eagle Scout? Like that?

I'm sure you think a lot of yourself but you're really dumber
than a stump, like all lefties. Idiot!

Interesting, then, that I can follow a discussion and
contribute to it while you can't.

Lies are *not* contributions, Dumb****, anymore that taxes are
investment.

Taxes may be used to make investments. Capital investments exist
in both the public and private sector.

Taxes *IMPEDE* investments. For *every* dime the government
spends on such things the private sector cannot spend two. You
really are a dumb****.

Best example to the contrary: the interstate system, built
by the state using tax funds.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows the Eisenhower Interstate
Highway system was a defense project.

Nonsense. It was a civil works project to improve travel
infrastructure.

Although it's not implausible for military projects to build or enhance
public areas (such as highways) that also benefit civilians. This, of
course, by no means vilifies the projects since they are paid for with
tax revenues and are of benefit to taxpayers -- it's a win-win.

The *only* thing government can
do reasonably well are things the private sector simply can't. Most
it fails at miserably or costs *way* too much. It's a natural law.

Why do reactionaries keep telling each other that. It is not true.

They're pushing an anti-government agenda. The fact is that government
employs a lot of competent people who do excellent work. If this
wasn't the case, then the government would fail. Sure, it's slightly
heavier on the paperwork side than most commercial organizations, but
there's an accountability factor there that many commercial entities
don't have to adhere to because they're structured differently.


What's astonishing is that they seem to think that building the
Interstate system or any other infrastructure project doesn't involve
the private sector. The government writes the check but nearly all of
the work is done by the private sector.