The United Way's Boy Scout Fetish

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | May 19, 2003 | Michael Reagan

[Luis Gonzalez]

CJ, what a pantload you are!

If ad hominems are the tools of the lazy, you must be the poster child for the Sloth Society of America.

After all, you called me here by leveling an unsolicited ad hominem attack at me.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't believe in anyone ussing the power of government to the extent that people in here want to.

The fight against this suppossed gay agenda falls in the lap of the citizens, but we've become real lazy these past few decades.

Church attendance is down in America, we worship secular comforts and pay lip service to God's command. Then, we try to use God as an argument when we get in trouble because of our lazyness as a people.

For example, I don't know how many times I've read on this forum that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the rise of abortions in America. Roe v. Wade is a symptom of the illness, not the illness in and of itself.

The illness being the desire by the members of our society to engage in worry-free, consequence-free sex.

If we truly believed in God, Roe v. Wade could stand forever, while no abortions were performed. By the same token, had we as a society not acted upon our desires to engage in consequence-free sexual activities, the "gay agenda" perhaps may have never been born.

Abortion and the rise of open homosexuality are nothing more than indicators of our own lack of morals as a society in general.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Best way to send them a message in my opinion.

United, say NO WAY!

[Sabertooth]

What's the matter, too much of a pussycat to address me directly?

While I suppose that's all very intimidating, you might want to consider discreetly keeping the macho role-playing thing a private matter between you and those who share an appreciation for that sort of activity.

[Luis Gonzalez]

LOL!!!

A guy with a picture of a goofy tiger on every post he posts wants to lecture me on role-playing?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Clint N. Suhks]

Come up with the constitutional provisions giving the government the power to control private sexual activities between its citizens.

That would be the 10th Amendment through our representatives. Or are you one of those Liberaltarians who doesn’t know the meaning of “certain rights”. Incest, bestiality, consensual pedophilia…you know those kind of “private sexual acts”.

Who empowered you with the right to decide that for the whole of society, since you are discussing the "rights" of society?

See above.

[breakem]

You've been on at least two threads recently where consentual was explained to you and why children and animals can't legally give consent. Either you are one of the most disingenuous posters here or you have severe old-timers disease.

Get another schtick or move on.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You've been on at least two threads recently where consensual was explained to you and why children and animals can't legally give consent.

And I’ve dismissed your logic with facts and proof you’re wrong. Care to debate your hypocrisy starting with incest? Or are only capable of moronic sophistry?

BTW no answer for the 10th amendment hummm???

[Sabertooth]

A guy with a picture of a goofy tiger on every post he posts

That would be me, although it's actually a goofy Smilodon, which is from an altogether different genus and subfamily of felids than Pantera tigris..

Setting paleozoology aside, there's a rather novel concept in computing called the "graphical user interface" (GUI), which employs the use of icons. Some, I'm sure, will always feel more at ease with text, and there's nothing really wrong with that.

[breakem]

You're hallucinating. I have explained the rights thing to you over and over. You misstate the purpose of the constitution and you seem devoid of any knowledge of human rights and the role of legitimate government. You consistently ignore the 9th amendment and seem to believe that government can restrict any human rights not listed.

I cannot put up with your ignorance anymore today, so, since you have the last word, try to give a coherent reply based on some semblence of reality...........or not.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I have explained the rights thing to you over and over.

NO all you've done is post the 9th amendment without any explanation why is trumps local legislative laws. What does the clause "certain rights" mean to you? I guarantee it's different than what Maidison said.

What was that about incest again? Can you stay on task?

[Cultural Jihad]

If we truly believed in God, Roe v. Wade could stand forever, while no abortions were performed.

Your Democratic Party-based argument is disingenuous, Luis. We can all play the "If Only Everyone Thought As I Did" game. In fact, if everyone adhered to the kindness of religious morality we wouldn't need any laws, period. The issue isn't that we should allow all sorts of cruelties with the false hope that no one will engage in them; the issue is that people have a right to establish minimal rules of civilized conduct, and they have a further right to expect and encourage others to adhere to them, and to discourage their transgressions.

[Cultural Jihad]

Relieve your boredom! Be jaded no longer! Tune in at 8 PM on Mega-Progressive Ideologue-TV for the weekly consensual pay-per-view presentation of Colossal Consensual Gladiatorial Combat to the Consensual Death For That Consensual Million Dollar Prize, where you, the consensual audience, get to vote electronically with a consensual thumbs up or a consensual thumbs down! Join in all the consensual fun, where only the consensual contestants consensually lose their unvalued, alienable lives! Laugh at the consensual death-throes! Joke at the consensual contortions! Bet on the consensual blood! Take a calloused, inured, and consensual stab for liberty!

(Tell your cable operator: 'I want my Mega-Progressive Ideologue-TV, you judgmental statist!')

[farmfriend]

Troop 386 bump. Golden Empire Counsel, Pony Express District.

[dsc]

Sigh. Three of the same, tired, misguided responses we always see, bang, bang, bang.

"Who empowered you with the right to decide that for the whole of society, since you are discussing the "rights" of society?"

This is an oft seen and particularly disingenuous substitute for an argument. Oh, it pretends to be an argument, but it's not.

Actually, it is an attempt to discredit--rather than answer--an argument through the pretense that the person making that argument concocted it all alone in isolation, has no support for it, and is its sole adherent.

I didn't "decide" that SSAD is a destructive and self-destructive disorder. Mankind *observed* those facts over at least a couple of millennia.

"Societies have no rights, only individuals have rights."

Sorry, but I have to give you a big "duh" on that one.

Do you recognize these words?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Or is the concept that people have a right to organize their society in such a way as to *them* shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness a new one for you?

"Come up with the constitutional provisions giving the government the power to control private sexual activities between its citizens."

There are three dishonest points in that statement.

The first is the attempt to focus on the federal government. I'm not talking about the federal government. The right of state governments to do so derives from the 10th Amendment and the document cited above, as well as a thousand years of English common law and myriad other sources.

The second is that you continue to return to that old fallacy, "private" sexual activities. If the pervofascist agenda had been a private one, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And the third is this: if the government is allowed under the Constitution to regulate something like murder, then it is allowed to regulate *any* behavior that our representatives decide should be criminal. The constitution nowhere mentions computer fraud, either, but I don't hear anybody calling laws against it extra-Constitutional.

Under the Constitution, our Representatives could criminalize chocolate chip cookies and legalize incestuous child-molesting. We--we the people, AKA "society"--are (ideally) empowered to decide what we want to be legal and what we want criminalized, and to make that happen through our representatives.

Those who disagree with you have just as much right to argue for their position and try to have it passed into law as you do to oppose them.

"Put it up, link to it."

This old ruse is so transparent that if you left your house wearing nothing else, you'd be arrested. What happens now is one of two things--either you provide no links, and the fellow declares victory on the grounds that you have no support; or you do post links, and the other fellow pronounces your sources unreliable and declares victory on the grounds that you have no support.

Waste of time, either way.

You should have been paying attention over the last 30 years. If you had, you would have seen the hundreds of sources supporting my assertion. Even now, an Internet search will provide you with plenty of material.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Your Democratic Party-based argument is disingenuous, Luis."

You have no debate in you, do you CJ?

All you can do is play some sophomoric name-calling game with anyone whose ideas you can't quite grasp.

You seem to think that life comes down to political parties, well, here's some news for you Einstein. I have ideas all of my own, free from party affiliations, and I do not need your approval to feel whole.

"The issue isn't that we should allow all sorts of cruelties with the false hope that no one will engage in them."

The real issue is that you can't overstep your bounds, and when you overstep them, you will get knocked down.

That goes for you, Kevin, and all the other pseudo-men in this thread who believe that their "righteous indignation" is best supported by infantile language, and high school taunts.

If the "gay rights" movement has a catalyst, it's you and people like you.

You give them amunition, you give them something to point to and yell "haters".

You do for them more than what they can do for themselves.

You are what they use against us.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I didn't "decide" that SSAD is a destructive and self-destructive disorder. Mankind *observed* those facts over at least a couple of millennia."

A good portion of mankind, and a substantial portion of Americans, disagree with you. Some of us, particularly those of us who are conservative by nature, do not believe that the government has the right to enact laws to protect us against ourselves.

Why would you cut out the portion of the Declaration of Independence where the Founders established the fact that all men are created equal?

Could it be because you are arguing that some are not?

I missed nothing from that document, you missed much.

Governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUALS.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Governments are set in place to secure the Liberties of the people from whom they derive their power. And NOWHERE on that document does it say one single word about the rights of a society. It talks about the right of the PEOPLE to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

"...if the government is allowed under the Constitution to regulate something like murder, then it is allowed to regulate *any* behavior that our representatives decide should be criminal."

That's about a scary a statement as I have ever seen.

It's also a blatant lie.

"What happens now is one of two things--either you provide no links, and the fellow declares victory on the grounds that you have no support..."

In other words, you have nothing to substantiate your claim of some kind of "agenda" existing anywhere other than in your mind.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Only if you're foolish enough to believe that a goat can consent to anything.

Here start all the strawmen arguments.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Setting paleozoology aside..."

Did you learn that to work at Pets R Us?