GernBlansten

Ed, would printing "In No God We Trust" be equally not promoting any religious belief?

The money motto's history is comparable to the Chevy Corvette. Both were invented in the 1950s. I'm really quite surprised our country fought two world wars, survived a devastating civil war and a great depression without it.

What is the true value of the motto on the money anyways? Is it to make the religious feel better about giving their money to the church? Is it to make the non-religious reconsider their wayward ways? Does it provide some defense against the old adage that money is the root of all evil? Here's a novel approach: Sell advertising space on the money. Walmart, Sony, Dodge Trucks, McDonald's would pay millions to have the right to advertise. Tough times require innovative solutions. My kids school bus already sells space on the buses. Makes the wheels on the bus go round and round.

The good folk of PETA are very dedicated to a set of values and beliefs which shape the way they live. The good folk of the LDS are very dedicated to a set of values and beliefs which shape the way they live. Why is it scoutlike to mock one set of values and not scoutlike to mock the other? I'm not saying I'm above it myself or without sin. I just make the observation.

Ed, who am I mocking in this thread? I agreed that I liked the motto on the coin.

There have been 3 pages of you all having a grand ole' time making fun of PETA. Now, I don't agree with everything that PETA does, but I do agree with most of what they do. I don't like dog fighting, cock fighting, fashion fur, animal entertainment. But I'm not a vegetarian. So a lot of PETA members would shun me. That's OK. I'm not offended. I also don't agree with a lot of what the LDS and Roman Catholics believe. But the Scout Law keeps me from making fun of their beliefs. A scout is reverent. It is valuing the right of another person to hold beliefs that you know to be wrong. I have seen demonstrated here a disregard of that law. Normally, on any other venue, I would allow this to pass, but this is a website dedicated to Scouters. Those of us who we trust to instill the scout law to our youth. Allow me to ask this question: If your scouts started mocking the beliefs of someone (say a Rastafarian), would you correct their behavior and recite the 10th law, or would you contribute to the mockery?

I like it. But why only have one motto? Lets put on "In-Sha'-Allah" "Have a Nice Day" "Shalom" Collect the whole set!

So if someone mocks the beliefs of the LDS or the Roman Catholics, that's fine as long as we don't get personal about it?

Exactly Pack. I guess liberal values are OK to mock, but conservative values are off limits. I've seen it repeated over and over here. Just can't see how those who claim to follow the scout law justify that.

Can someone please explain which scout law supports the mocking of anothers value system?

75015 Zip code of the national headquarters of a famous youth organization. Voted 57% Obama, 41% McCain. Should we boycott that organization? (This message has been edited by gernblansten)

My heart goes out to little Trig. He's a mere 4 months old, severely handicapped and his mother is too busy becoming VP to spend much time with him. She left him 3 days after he was born to resume her job as Gov of Alaska. He needs the touch of his mother, the calming feeling only his mother can give him. Its a very difficult road for Trig, he shouldn't have to travel it alone. Perhaps she should have given Trig up for adoption so he could have a loving, dedicated mother. Do you think there's a conservative mother who might want to adopt Trig?

Obviously, experience is no longer an issue.

This woman is supposed to be the icon of conservative, family values eh? Didn't she just have a child in April who has Down's Syndrome? Wouldn't a conservative, family values mother want to dedicate 110% of her efforts in making sure that child had everything he needed? How much time is left to be VP? Wouldn't a true conservative mother put her career aside to care for her needy family?

Make sure the local media is made aware of it. Have the cubs in full uniform when the photographer takes a picture of the sad scouts and empty parking spot. It'll guarentee replacement of all lost stuff 3x over. How do I know? It happened 2 years go in my district.

Pack, does the darwinian approach include faith healing?

Labels are fine, but they are frequently applied too liberally to describe a complex situation. They are often used in a derogatory way which makes them even more useless. Most people applying those labels are ignorant of the substance of the label itself. Example: To claim that socialism is bad or that the object of your disdain is an unabashed socialist, then advocate that some socialist programs are swell, diminishes the label to become meaningless.

Simple. NHC would eliminate the need for private, employer subsidized health insurance. This would free up vast amounts of money to offset the increased taxes necessary to fund the program. Net result to the typical consumer, lower costs. Yes your taxes would rise, but it would be offset by you no longer needing private insurance. Remember, its really just one giant public insurance company, not a dozen private ones. Think an expansion of Medicare, which is a government managed insurance program. The model wouldn't change, the risk pool would be massive so cost per subscriber required to offset the disbursements would be less than the current system. Shareholder profit and executive bonus' would be a thing of the past. Those expenses eliminated. Write-offs for uninsured/under-insured patients would also be eliminated. Those costs are now fed back into the system increasing our premiums to offset them. Since employers would no longer offer health care as a benefit of employment, they will need to use other methods to retain and recruit employees, like bonus plans or increased salaries. Employees will have mobility to move from job to job without fear of losing their coverage. Freedom to boldly start from scratch if they wish, or follow an entrepreneurial vision.

"Gern I disagree that socialized medicine is a good idea. I havent seen a country where it works well nor a country that has socialized medicine that doe snot also have a "private" health system as well." Canadians I've asked are satisfied with their system. Sure there are problems, but no system is perfect for everyone. If there was so much dissatisfaction with the Canadian system, wouldn't you think they would chuck it in favor of our "superior" system?

The US is not a socialist state, at least not in the classic definition of one. However, we do employ many socialist programs, many of which are not labeled socialized but nonetheless are. Socialism in the US exists, and its not just welfare and social security. The question is not whether the US should move towards a socialized society, but whether socialized programs are the best solution to a given problem over a privatized, for-profit one. While we have privatized many of the support roles of our military, I would hope we never go to a purely mercenary force. Many of the freedoms of travel we enjoy are due to the socialized nature of our infrastructure. I am also one of those that believe that socialized medicine is another program that just makes sense, both ethically and financially.

Doesn't the same apply for any other traditional federal service or natural monopoly?

Yes, the borrow and spend plan we have been using for the past 30 years is gonna catch up to us. But lets look at another American institution, health insurance. It really is just voluntary, privatized socialism. The whole purpose of insurance is to spread the risk across a large pool so those who never need it, pay for those who do. To manage this risk, insurance companies ration care either through co-pays or pre-authorizations for procedures. Companies set payment levels for each procedure that professionals provide. If the professional doesn't agree, they simply don't take that insurance. The bigger the insurance company, the bigger the pool, the lower the premiums, the more weight they carry when negotiating with healthcare providers. With government socialized health care, every American is entered into the pool. Risk is spread across 300,000,000 people so there are more people to pay for those who need it. There are differences, there is no CEO who gets $124M per year (Bill McGuire). Rationing is determined by government committee instead of boardroom profit seekers. Reimbursements to providers will be set at a national level. Because everyone is covered, preventive care will be better utilized thus reducing the need of expensive, catastrophic care. Think of the uninsured Walmart greeter who has diabetes and foot infection. Will he dip into his own pocket to get it treated or wait until it becomes so infected, amputation is the only treatment.

Why stop there? Every road should be a toll road, with proceeds going to the company that owns them to maintain them. Every fire company should bill the recipient of their services for fire fighting. Garden hoses are cheap. You can't pay, better bring the marshmallows. We don't even need police. With a well armed population, there will will be no crime. Military? Why? With well organized militias, we can defend ourselves from all enemies foriegn and domestic. With all that extra cash each citizen will have, they can own their own WMD. Education? Home schooling could be mandatory, eliminating huge costs. Medicare? Why would we want to keep our elderly citizens healthy? They are a drag on the common good. Let them die. Social Security? see above. Eliminate their health care, they won't be around to need SS. What other socialized programs could we eliminate? There was a time when this utopia was reality. They called it the dark ages.

We knew he "had" WMD at sometime because we sold him WMD in the 80s. He then used it on his own people and the evil Iranians. But if he did still have them, why didn't he use them on us during the invasion? Did he like us more than the Iranians or the Kurds? Kinda silly to get all those WMD and sit on them when you really need them. But he lied about having stockpiles of WMD. Why? Because he needed to remain in power. Without the hollow threat of WMD, he was vulnerable. If he said he didn't have any and let the inspectors verify it, Iran would have jumped him and the Kurds would have rebelled. The US used his lies, fortified with our own to make a case for war. It wasn't the WMD that we wanted, it was a base from which to spin our web of influence. Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive!

Yes Pack, I fail to understand why it is fine to socialize the loses of corporations (bailouts), yet when it comes to providing for the general welfare (health care) of the citizens, its fine to privatize the loses. I also fail to understand why the finest socialized organization in the US, our military is great, yet the term socialism is a derogatory term when describing a political ideology.