firstpusk

I don't travel in the rarified circles that BobWhite does, but I know several volunteers that have served on national committees. The ones that I know are quite approachable and reasonable individuals. If you have concerns about specific issues, find out who is serving and talk with them.

I think that the Scoutmaster here let everyone down. The SM should be discussing the law and oath with the scout at each and every SM conference. Any Eagle candidate should have a thorough understanding of these principals by the time they are going to an Eagle Board. The very first SM should cover the joining requirements. The new scout should understand and agree to live by the oath, law, motto, slogan and the outdoor code. I have had several Eagles whose families were not church going. The religious reference needs to be discussed with any candidate. Here again, the SM and the Advancement Committee Chair should ensure the scout understands all of the requirements for Eagle. When I acted as SM, no Eagle application was signed off unless it was completed.

Rooster, If you choose to be obtuse, that is your prerogative. The choice of analogy was particularly offensive and you would know it if you honestly reflected on it for even a moment. I have noted other such "arguments" from you in the past on a number of different issues. When called on it you claim you have been misread. Soon after that you will question the intelligence, character or honesty of the person. You did not disappoint me this time either you questioned my integrity and asked for an honest debate. That is also your prerogative. However, if the intent of your post was only to discuss how you would proselytize outside of the BSA program, it would be easy enough to apologize for the lack of clarity in your writing and to simply say that. I will reiterate what I said earlier. If you can not honestly respect the beliefs of others, find another program. The BSA can do better than a volunteer that is compelled to compare the faith practices of others in such a crass and mean-spirited manner.

Bob, my apologies. I was quoting Rooster's response to you. I know I should use the format capabilities. That would have made it clearer.

"Bob, My lack of respect for certain religions does not compel me to badger those who posses those beliefs. Even if I were solicited to share my opinion, I would not be inclined to insult or degrade any individual. Instead, I would clearly explain why I disapprove of such a belief. You seem to be making the assumption that if I disrespect a religion, I must also show contempt for its followers. This is simply not so. Why would I hound or insult someone if I thought they were deceived? If anything, I would try to convince such a person to examine the evidence for his or her belief. At least, thats always my intent going into a debate thats centered around religion that I know to be false. Regardless, the point is, I am not compelled to persecute individuals for possessing beliefs that I disrespect." Your toilet water analogy said it all. Could you be more crass and less respectful in choosing something to compare the befiefs of another? As a scout leader, your job is not to convert others to your beliefs. It is to provide the program. If you think that scout leaders should prostletize, you have the wrong program. Please go find another that more closely suits your proclivity.

I think you missed the "WHEELER" era. His input drove a number of folks to distraction. OGE's comments and the thread itself were for this person's benefit. The use of the word "drivel" was meant to be ironic.

Um, yeah...Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson were definitely not in his league.

After Ed mentioned it, I checked mine and it was okay. I tried to see if it would update. It did. But when I went back to check it - the profile was gone. I guess the solution is leave it alone if you have one that is more or less okay.

Not yet, but I'm pretty sure going blank has something to do with age... ;^)

Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

Interesting article. Clearly GW Bush is a legend in his own time... ;^)

If only Arnold Ziffle could talk. ;^)

acco40, thank you for posting no descriptors with savant ;^)

zipmedic, Bob is correct. We replaced both the troop and pack committee chairs in the last two years. Because I was volunteer resource chair for the district and member of the training staff, my input was sought. As an SA, I had no right to expect such input and felt honored that I would be consulted. The final decision was the Charter Institutional Head. He or she will be the one to sign off on the volunteer application. These Eagle Scouts needed signoffs from the project recipient institution representative, SM, CC or other Committee Member and the District just to start the project. Once completed the Eagle candidate needs SM, project recipient institution representative signatures indicating the project is completed. The rank application requires his SM, CC, Council Records, the Board of Review Chairman, the District Board of Review Representative and the Scout Executive. I signed many when I was SM in my oldest son's troop. In my younger son's, I have been honored to sign two Eagle Project Workbooks and two Eagle Applications. They were SM's sons. He felt it would be a conflict of interest to sign for his own sons. As SA, one should never expect that opportunity. You may not agree, but it was never your decision to make. I have examined the Eagle paperwork many times and never saw a line for SA signatures. If I were in your position, I would start by apologizing to the CC and SM. You will have no influence to make changes in the program until you mend fences. Once you have apologized ask about district training resources. We do Troop Committee Challenge to help the members understand their roles. I hope you avail yourself of the training opportunities for members of the scoutmaster corps.

Amen, BOB, amen. I attend many of the Committee meetings for the troop. As an SA, I report on specific aspects of the program the SM has asked me to handle and have made SM the report in his absence. The Committee Chair asks for the status of the troop from the SPL the SM and Committee Members with assignments. The Committee may discuss an issue and come to consensus. As I recall, I have never seen a vote. Only more assignments from the Chair.

"Coffee cup!! Coffee cup!! With a belt clip!!" Amen, Brother!

FOG, that is an interesting comment. I don't doubt it is true, either. Perhaps it was karma that a small minded, vindictive opponent wrapped himself in the stars and bars, visited Bob Jones University and called the senator from Arizona a hypocrite. Bush must have really burned his butt.

What about the 1996 bombing of the World Trade Center? They just didn't get it done the first time. If anyone out there thinks that the U.S can stop the terrorist if they really want to hit us, they are deluded. We live in a great free country, but it is that freedom that they can use against us if they want to. It is how we respond when they do that will deter them from future actions. The first WTC bombing occurred on February 26, 1993 just a little more than a month after the Clinton administration took office. He sent anti-terrorism legislation to Congress and it passed that year. The principal suspects were captured and convicted for that attack. They remain in prison today. Terrorism is difficult to stop. Clinton could have done more. However, a comprehensive strategy was handed over to Bush. They did nothing on terrorism until after 9/11. Also if you think that there is a politician out there who doesnt lie to the people, again you are deluded Perhaps I am for expecting an honest statement from the President on matters of policy. However, I feel if you excuse his lies it will simply continue to happen. It is the responsibility of citizens to demand more of their leaders. Unfortunately, the way our political system works today, a politician has to sell his soul to get the money to run for office. I agree that money in politics is a problem. Bush was absolutely opposed to campaign finance reform until it passed Congress. Then he signed it and acted like it was his idea all along. His campaign fund raising tops all records. Of course, he turns around and gives away the store to these contributors even allowing them to draft legislation proposed to Congress and reneging on campaign promises when the contributors ask. Lets not forget that over 90% of the members of Congress are lawyers, trained to look for the cracks in our legal system or ways to get around it. I am not sure about the occupations of the 108th Congress, but the 106th had 217 lawyers or about 40%. It may be a bit higher, though I doubt that the percentage is up to 90. Of course, if you are not willing to call a politician on dirty dealing, there is no way anything will change for the better. Is Bush the worst president? No, but I trust him more than the last one, and I dont see a better alternative in the next election. Just as noted above, the President needs to be called on his dishonesty and dirty dealing if anything is to change for the better. Clinton lied about his sex life and that was deplorable. This man is dishonest about policy decisions. That is much worse. P.S. I am an Independent and voted for a Democratic governor last election. And I voted for Republicans in the first two Presidential Elections in which I participated. Id be willing to vote for a Republican like John McCain but not one like GW Bush.

FrankJ, I generally consider a correction by definition must be correct. Your statement was not a correction. It was a half-truth. Only the first part was true. I granted you the true part, that a customs agent did indeed note the nervous would-be bomber and made the arrest. I also pointed out the false part, that the Clinton administration had nothing to do with foiling the bombing. That seems to be where your problem understanding me comes about. You won't accept that there was intelligence indicating possible terrorist infiltration from Canada. You won't admit the feds had alert status at the border. You won't even grant that status was a contibuting factor in the arrest. Customs agents do work for the federal government, don't they? I guess they must have been freelance volunteers during the Clinton administration.

Pack, with a bit of reflection, I have to agree with your assessment of Nixon. He was a man of tremendous intellect and prodigious paranoia. He hid a whole illeagal war - now that's a whopper. The mention of GWHB was interesting. The old man had an understanding of the consequences of the actions the son has taken. The fact that it was unnecessary is the ultimate irony. Bob, I am sure that Osama bin Laden was just about to give up until he read my posts criticizing Bush. Back in the cave for him. Those perfectly concealed WMD programs, plans and stockpiles were about to be revealed by the evil-doers until they saw my post on the Scouter bulletin board. Bob, my heart truly goes out to you. You are in my prayers.

Read his statements over time. Look at what he said to the UN, to Congress and to the American people. Then compare it the information we now know he was given. Sorry BW, our President is a liar of the first order. He makes Nixon and Clinton look like understudies. Nixon lied to keep power. Clinton lied to hide the truth about his sex life. This man lied to send America to war - a war the nation did not need to fight. It is going to be pretty hard to top this man's record of dishonesty.

The only thing that Rooster had correct in his last post was, "In the end, truth will prevail." I don't need to invent ways to demean the President. He does very well on his own, thank you very much. A citizen has a duty to be informed. The information is there for anyone who will honestly consider it. The record shows the dishonest way this President and his administration has lied to the our allies, the UN, the Congress of the United States and most importantly the citizens. I guess that stacks up to good moral character in your book. Or does it only count as a lie if it is told by a Democrat?

"Bush is TRUSTWORTHY !! Our enemies know it and you know it! Even if you don't like where it leads us." Capital letters and exclamation points won't make it so. Bush is the most dishonest man we have had as President. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and he knew it. Iraq had no significant WMD stockpiles and he knew it. Iraq had no ongoing programs to develop WMD and he knew it. How did he know it? We had inspectors searching the country going right to were his "intelligence sources" told them where to go and they found nothing. Since we have been there, we have found nothing to change this assessment. On the consistency check, I supported both deployments. They had a rationale that made sense. They had wide international support and they were bipartisan in nature. None of these criteria were met with the current deployment. You do recall of course that the Somalia was initiated deployment was during Bush's term not Clinton's. I think that either Gore or Kerry would have deployed troops to Afghanistan. On Afghanistan, you seem to forget that there was broader military support for that effort - including France. The difference is that these men would not have squandered the international consensus as Bush has done.

"This is incredibly amusing, if not outright hypocritical, because evolution does not have a factual basis. In truth, many of the scientific communitys best and brightest concede that evolution does not even qualify as a theory. In the end, its merely a worldview a religion, if you will that permits its followers to embrace whatever feels good." Evolution has a factual basis. The support for the theory becomes more solid with each passing year. I don't know where you get the idea that the "best and brightest" disagree with evolution, but you could not be more wrong. Evolution is a tool that helps us to understand the world we live in. However, it is not a worldview or a religion. As science, it simply does not speak to these questions.

It really doesn't matter where you got it from. It has the same callous disregard for truth as Limbaugh. It expresses the same willingness to abuse one small fact to support a malicious slander. I hold what you say in low regard. The statements you made are the same half-truths made by Limbaugh. As the millennium approached, there were numerous warnings issued to the public through the media. Those followed an extensive intelligence effort by the US and its allies. About the President. I said anyone would be better and I mean it. Any of the men or women that stepped forward this year would be better than him. I did not say he was the worst in our history, but we can easily do better than him.