In previous threads, I learned that the Scouts are right-wing, Christian fanatics. I have also learned from previous threads that right-wing, Christian fanatics are terrorists. If a = b and b = c, then a = c.

Mikey Hicks is a terrorist?

Is Mike Hunt on there, too?

Queue DR retard sniper to show up and contradict his earlier assertions that Obama hasn't done anything ---- to declare this is the result of Obamas actions.

Is Mike Hunt on there, too?

Right next to I. C. Wiener.

"In previous threads, I learned that the Scouts are right-wing"

You did? What thread was that?

The Reason I am asking is that I myself posted about the creation of the BSA by a Committed Liberal and Admitted Socialist, who was the First to Integrate and was a fervent Union Supporter.

In addition to these facts, I noted that if an organization like this was proposed today --- the "right" wing in this country would be shitting bricks and calling it Socialism!

Boy Scout Law
A Scout is:
Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
And Reverent.
______________________________
__________
Boy Scout Motto
Be Prepared!
______________________________
__________
Boy Scout Slogan
Do a Good Turn Daily!
______________________________
__________
The Outdoor Code
As an American, I will do my best to -
Be clean in my outdoor manners
Be careful with fire
Be considerate in the outdoors, and
Be conservation minded.

The first time he was patted down, at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mikey was 2. He cried.

The spin:
a) he isn't really on terror list, but on selectee list.
b) his name is still similar to a suspected terrorist, so we cannot completely remove him

After being patted down at 2 as a suspected domestic terrorist, even if you believe the BS, the boy remains a "selectee" at age 8. Meanwhile, international flying diapered-men without identification whose father begs the US to watch out for is not even a threat.

What the hell? Brownies I can understand.

You did? What thread was that?

Wis,

I don't know about your neighborhood, but around here those Cub Scouts are radical little bastards.

I hear they even run a "soap box derby"! I wonder what terrorist act that is code words for?

"Never underestimate an 8 year old armed with a spork"

101

I wonder what terrorist act that is code words for?

#9 | Posted by 726

You get those little shavers on a plane and they'd have the crew tied up in no time. Those little shits are good knot tiers.

Well, Mikey, that's what you get when you make spitballs while eating Red Hots and Atomic Fireballs.

I guess you don't have any children.

I though Scouts were only terrorists when they try to have outings in public parks in California. Damn little Christians!

You did? What thread was that?

Maybe the old Boy Scouts.

The modern boy scouts are allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.

The Boy Scouts is a Socialist Organization (AKA a Union) formed by a Socialist based on Socialist Ideas and Agendas.

Being "Helpful, Friendly Courteous, Kind, Clean and Thrifty is not in today's "conservative" lexicon

Doing a Good Turn a day and being Conservation Minded is out and out Tree Hugging Socialism to them!

Just because some ignorant loudmouths claim ownership of the scouts because of its emphasis on religion doesn't undermine that most of the principles of the scouts would be defined as Socialist activity. It's a shame that this great compassionate and community service minded organization is pressured into discriminatory practices by a small but very vocal group who controls the purse.

I love the scouts and look forward to rekindling this old relationship when my son gets of age!

The Boy Scouts of America is a private, non-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people.

The boyscouts of america use federal dollars while it discriminates against gays.

Ignorant Loudmouths don't just claim ownership of the scouts, they're running the scouts. Rationalize it any way you like, but the scouts you remember are not the scouts of today.

...but the scouts you remember are not the scouts of today.

Yah... fond memories... getting high for the first time with my buds in the Micky Mouse Patrol up on Old Rag Mountain....and then that damn bear stuck his nose into our tent and scared the ba-Jesus out of us! I whacked him with my canteen and we all ran out the back of the tent...sigh...yup...them were the good old days.

I guess I'm mistaken. Liberals hate gays too. My bad.

Nothing like efficient government service to make us feel safer.

Queue DR retard sniper to show up and contradict his earlier assertions that Obama hasn't done anything ----

#3 | Posted by Redneckville

You gotta love a president that has an 8 year old cub scout on a terror list.

Better than a president who was "ranching" instead of reading threat assessments. Oh, but no one could have imagined terrorists flying planes into buildings, right?

Boy Scouts ban on homosexual leaders neither keeps homosexuals from being boy scout leaders or allows them to use government buildings, etc. It seems to me to be a rather foolish policy unless the scouts intend on investigating every one of their leaders and other adult employees and volunteers. I say this because I had personal knowledge of someone involved in scouting who was definitely gay.
When you force people into a closet you make it in their best interest to be dishonest about who they are. That is all the scouts policy does, it's all "don't ask don't tell" does.

"You gotta love a president that has an 8 year old cub scout on a terror list."

That's still better than the president who had that eight year old on the list when he was just a baby.

"Michael Winston Hicks's mother initially sensed trouble when he was a baby and she could not get a seat for him on their flight to Florida at an airport kiosk; airline officials explained that his name "was on the list," she recalled."

Better than a president who was "ranching" instead of reading threat assessments. Oh, but no one could have imagined terrorists flying planes into buildings, right?

#23 | Posted by LetUsPrey

You mean the golf course or the beach is better than the ranch? Who could have imagined someone blowing his nuts off to bring down a plane over a large city?

Too bad the Cub Scouts Father didn't call to get the kid on the list. That way it never would have happened.

This 'No Fly' list has been a sham since the day is was rolled out.

They need to do some real housekeeping and purge that list of stale names. They have the access to intel, so they should clean it up and make sure that only the 'Mikey Hicks' (or Ted Kennedy) that they're really looking for is the one prevented from boarding.

"Who could have imagined someone blowing his nuts off to bring down a plane over a large city?

#26 | Posted by Sniper"

Attagirl Snoopy, deflect all fucking day.

...Is Mike Hunt on there, too?
Right next to I. C. Wiener...

Don't forget those suspicious dark-skinned fellows:

Nick Gherz
&
John Gilbani.

Regards,
~ Dingy Harry Reid

Boy Scouts are well known for their anti-gay separatist policies. It is well past to shut down this antisocial Para-military militia organization. Better yet perhaps they can be re-organized into something to heal and re-educate these young people, maybe call it "Obama's Youth".

Wasn't long ago the no fly list and the Patriot Act were left wing talking points....used to bash the 'scare mongers' as an infringement of our right to privacy.

Turns out there are less then 4,000 names on the list.

Turns out there are less then 4,000 names on the list.

Really?

Turns out there are less then 4,000 names on the list.

#32 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2010-01-14 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've heard 500,000 to 1 Million people.

I hear they even run a "soap box derby"! I wonder what terrorist act that is code words for?

They are just practicing suicide car bombings. No motor=silent attack. You never read some survivor saying, "we heard this loud racket like an old beater a couple of minutes beforehand", do you? Besides, they use gravity to do their dirty work, like the 9-11 terrorists.

Hmmm..............

Everbody knows you shouldn't suspect a boy scout of terrorism until he gets his explosives badge.

Lip, Cub Scout. Then comes Webelows, then Boy Scouts. This kid had as much experience in terrorism as Obama has in being President.

Well, if you thought an Arab was deadly with a utility knife....

Politicaly correct shit of New World America, although he is white, extremely under age for any threat, he has the same name as a terrorist on the terrorist watch list, that means he is treated as a potential threat to blow up America even though incapable, while real terrorists like the recent Full grown and trained Negro baby faced terrorist was allowed to pass all security with no luggage passport, and fly into the U.S. into Detroit free to blow up the plane he was allowed to freely fly in on with all 300 plus passengers aboard.
Go figure, are all Negros allowed mass murder forever, just because they are black???
Don't answer, I know the correct already...

You gotta love a president that has an 8 year old cub scout on a terror list.

#22 | Posted by Sniper

When he was put on the watch list at two years old, it was by your hero, George W Bush. Or are you still insisting Clinton was president for 16 years?
Does it hurt to be that stupid?

Unreal.

Plus, the Boy Scouts are often berated for their policy on homosexual leadership. A common expression used is "bigot."

#8 | POSTED BY TYLERDURDEN

Well first you have to know the difference between a Homosexual and a Pedophile. An individual can be a Homosexual without being a pedophile similar to a Heterosexual not being a Pedophile. The problem with the Boy Scouts is that they think all Homosexuals are Pedophiles when in actuality the Pedophiles like to pretend they are "normal" straight ace people to infiltrate their chosen hunting grounds. They are sick individuals.

We had an instance of a "straight" good xtian that was a scout leader that so happened to molest over 26 boys for 8 years before being sent to jail. He was a well known person in the local methodist church. he was not a "homo".

K, one of two things gotta happen here.

The assclowns in charge of maintaining this data base need to clear off the stale names and provide additional info to be able to clear up the situation fer people like the kid in this article.

Either that or the entire No-Fly database has to be made available fer everybody to access so that parents-to-be can at least pick a name fer their kid that aint on the list.

Personally Spud's voting fer the former option.

Be Well.

What's the Boy Scouts' take on frisking 8 year olds?

Plus, the Boy Scouts are often berated for their policy on homosexual leadership. A common expression used is "bigot."

#8 | POSTED BY TYLERDURDEN

The Democrats and Republicans often berate each other's policies, beliefs, and leadership. A common expression that describes both parties is they are "bigots".

"The first time he was patted down, at Newark Liberty International Airport, Mikey was 2. He cried."

Oh the humanity! Do you have any idea what kind of trauma you have to put a two year old through to get him to cry? Two year olds don't normally cry!

Forgive me for not piling onto this melodrama. If the kid is eight now he probably thinks this is cool. Even if he doesn't, he's learned that life is almost never convenient or fair and that authority figures often lack common sense and human decency and are not to be completely trusted. And he learned all this through very minor inconveniences. There are kids with real problems all over the place but this isn't one of them.

Is it really that bad for him to get frisked when he goes through airport security? Soon he'll be going through a body scanner anyway so the list will be pointless. Its not really a No-Fly list anymore as it is a double check these people or similar named people to make sure they aren't carrying C-4. As a liberal, if I'm getting on a plane and my name fits, it's cool to frisk me, check out my bag, shoes, belt, etc. Getting on a plane is not a right, but a privilege. And I'll put up with the hassle to be a little safer and make those around me feel safer.

Also, can the TSA screener who does frisk me possibly be a hot female college cheerleader? Thanks.

If the FBI sent all its dumbest agents to TSA, the average IQ of both organizations would go up.

Status: Achieved

#46 sully
Forgive me for not piling onto this melodrama. If the kid is eight now he probably thinks this is cool.... he's learned that life is almost never convenient or air .... authorities lack common sense and decency and not to be completely trusted

Melodrama? Sure. Was that illustration really about drama? If you say so. Your explanation is so much more logical.

What do you do for a living? Are you a master marketer? If not the govt has the pefect job for you as a master spinster. Perhaps you already have that job.

Ahhh, I remember the Cub Scouts. I still have my merit badges for Controlled Demolition and Disruptive Terrorism. Good Times!

#47 syco
Its not really a No-Fly list anymore.... it is a double check these people or similar named people to make sure they aren't carrying C-4.

Really? No more no-fly lists? Are you that foolish?

Yes, of course. Because the average American is evil and would bring C-4 to the airport. Are you delusional, stupid or an operative?

Getting on a plane is not a right, but a privilege.

No scum bag, it is not a privilege. Govt doesn't have the Constitutional authority to give a privilege for free movement. You've either bought into the propaganda BS or you are the propaganda BS.

So, driver's licenses are unconstitutional?

still waiting for Sniper to defend his stupidity...
*crickets chirping*

A driver's license is a state form of ID and therefore not covered by the Constitution I think.

I meant the "free movement" portion. You need a driver's license to drive a car legally. Therefore the government is well withing its rights to restrict air travel. Not only that, but airlines are private businesses and can deny travel to whomever they like.

the average American is evil and would bring C-4 to the airport

You never know who is what anymore. People probably don't know you're an idiot until you open your mouth, for example.

Considering the very short list of things you are allowed to say around, bring on, or do near an airplane, I would say it is most certainly a privilege.

"Melodrama? Sure. Was that illustration really about drama? If you say so. Your explanation is so much more logical."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I didn't "explain" anything and therefore you are referencing an "explanation" that exists only in your imagination. I didn't say there is good reason to frisk this kid, I said it is not the traumatic event that it is being portrayed as.

"What do you do for a living? Are you a master marketer? If not the govt has the pefect job for you as a master spinster. Perhaps you already have that job."

What spin? I've received extra attention from the NSA for no good reason before. It was inconvenient and annoying. When I was two, it may have made me cry. But so did finding out my headless, reeking, puke-stained stuff giraffe was thrown away. The premise you seem to be operating under is that whether it makes a two year old cry is a reasonable measure for whether something is traumatic. Any adult knows this is ludicrous. Even the people pretending otherwise on this thread know this.

I have a very common name and from time to time mistaken identity causes me inconvenience. Sucks for me. But this is not a symptom of some major failing of the part of society. It isn't reasonable to teach a kid to expect to go through life without expecting a few unfair inconveniences. As far as life's challenges go, being frisked at an airport is minor. Teaching this kid to believe otherwise does him a disservice. In fact, I would bet the parents' overreaction to the kid being frisked is what feeds his apprehension over the situation.

I'm sure he'll grow up and get over it. Hopefully the drama queens on this thread can do the same.

"Govt doesn't have the Constitutional authority to give a privilege for free movement."

Nor does it have the authority to mandate that a private company has to let everyone on its privately owned planes. Freedom of movement means you can move about freely using your own resources, not someone else's. You aren't entitled to take my shit under the premise of freedom of movement.

#55 prey
I meant the "free movement" portion. You need a driver's license to drive a car legally. Therefore the government is well withing its rights to restrict air travel. Not only that, but airlines are private businesses and can deny travel to whomever they like.

Nice try. Pull the cobwebs from your Constitution. Read the 4,9,10th Amendment.

Who's jurisdiction is drivers licenses?

#55 prey
but airlines are private businesses and can deny travel to whomever they like

No.
First, airlines are not denying travel. It is fascist government powers.

Second, they may not discriminate.

Third, Prey will have a very different position when it is HE that is denied when a Republicon is in the executive dictatorship position at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

#58 sully
the average American is evil and would bring C-4 to the airport

You are the only one using the word 'traumatic'. Therefore you are the one producing the 'melodrama' that you complain about.

parents' overreaction to the kid being frisked

Your argumentation is premised on a false assertion that any incremental false sense of security measure taken and implemented is simply an "inconvenience".

#59 sully
Nor does it have the authority to mandate that a private company has to let everyone on its privately owned planes.

#61 | Posted by L_RContrarian at 2010-01-15 01:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

In addition, your wording is surreptitious.

"You are the only one using the word 'traumatic'. Therefore you are the one producing the 'melodrama' that you complain about."

OK, so if the kid is being traumatized then what is the big deal? We're talking about less than a few minutes of inconvenience every time the kid travels.

"Your argumentation is premised on a false assertion that any incremental false sense of security measure taken and implemented is simply an "inconvenience"."

I would agree with you if you weren't being intellectually dishonest by using the word "any". We are talking about any and all security measures both existing and imagined. We are talking about someone whose name scores a hit on the watch list being delayed for a few minutes and frisked.

My arguement is based on the premise that being delayed for a few minutes and being frisked is merely an inconvenience. If there is a reasonable arguement to be made to the contrary, it has not been made here. You hint at some nefarious plot to take away our freedom but have yet to demonstrate what is so horrible about losing a few minutes or time or that anyone is benefiting from this in some hidden way. And the reason you have not done this is because you can't. Because losing a few minutes of time and being frisked IS only a minor inconvenience to anyone adult with a healthy sense of proportion.

"In addition, your wording is surreptitious."

I have found gramatical errors in your posts as well. I choose not to focus on them because your ideas are more problematic. I can only assume that you focus on grammer because you can't intelligently refute the idea.

"OK, so if the kid is being traumatized then what is the big deal?"

There's a not missing from there in case you couldn't figure that out, grammar cop.

"We are talking about any and all security measures"

Another missing "not".

"you focus on grammer"

Grammar. Sheesh. Maybe I should be thankful that L RCON can only hint at having a point other than I can't type, spell or form a sentence.

They failed to make the Boy Scouts admit openly gay members, so it's obvious BSA troops are terrorists for opposing lefty agitprop squads.

#64 sully
I would agree with you if you weren't being intellectually dishonest by using the word "any". We are talking about any and all security measures both existing and imagined. We are talking about someone whose name scores a hit on the watch list being delayed for a few minutes and frisked

Actually "any" is accurate in the sense of being haphazard.

Do you really think your argument holds water? A 2 or 8 year old kid must be frisked because a name has a near match to a "terrorist" is an "INCONVENIENCE"? Common sense is not permitted.

#65 sully
"In addition, your wording is surreptitious."

I have found gramatical errors in your posts as well....

Nice attempt at deflection. Look up what surreptitious means. It doesn't mean grammar.

"Do you really think your argument holds water? A 2 or 8 year old kid must be frisked because a name has a near match to a "terrorist" is an "INCONVENIENCE"? Common sense is not permitted."

I didn't say it was a good use of time or a smart thing to do. I said that the only real harm being caused is inconvenience. Despite all your bloviating, you have yet to make a sensible arguement to the contrary. The next time you tell me what harm is being caused other than inconvenience will be the first time. Your failure to contradict me at all should be your first clue that my arguement holds water.

"Nice attempt at deflection. Look up what surreptitious means. It doesn't mean grammar."

I know what you meant. Redundancy can be technically correct but its generally considered poor form, which is why you raised the issue in the absence of being able to make a real point in the first place. I was merely pointing out that I could have stooped to your level by nitpicking your grammar but haven't because I don't need to do so. The fact that you felt the need to post the above quote pretty much proves I had you pegged.

A 2 or 8 year old kid must be frisked because a name has a near match to a "terrorist" is an "INCONVENIENCE"? Common sense is not permitted."

you have yet to make a sensible arguement to the contrary.

Really? If you wish to ignore and deflect common sense and call it "inconvenient", then you delude yourself. The rest of DR will have to make their own judgment.

redundancy

What's redundant? You kept babbling about grammar while just now admitting that I never spoke about grammar.

I could have stooped to your level by nitpicking your grammar

Really? After admitting that you knew that I never was talking about grammar, you MUST coninue your deflection BS.

A distinct pattern is emerging. You must attempt to define my argumentation using imagery of words I never use -- 'traumatic, melodrama, grammar' then harp on that to deflect that you have no leg to stand on.