moosetracker

Thanks Calico - you may have AZMike, swearing under his breath, but I appreciate the explanation.. I came here before you posted.. Looked at the info and went on a search for more info. Never found anything else on it.. So right there it looked real fishy, that this would be the only item on it. Then what also struck me as funny was the statement that the policy was added the day after the acceptance speech at the DNC, yet already 18 states had signed up for it, and had an estimate of how many people they would like to put on it.. Sorry, government just doesn't move that fast ! So, although I couldn't find the facts to dispute it, that fishy smell was really prominent.. Phewey.. (Mopping out the fish guts as we speak.) Democrats are known to love their entitlement programs.. Anyone telling me that the Republicans are defending your entitlement programs, and Democrats are trying to dismantle it has got to show me a lot of proof.. Not just one single article with no backup.. Also this has not been detailed, but my suspicions are if Medicare survives until the Republican voucher program starts up 10 years from now.. Which it probably wont as it will run out sooner once the costs from Fraud, Admn. Fees, and Medicare Advantage are re-added.. I guess Ryan's plan was for the same savings, but Romney wants to restore the waste.. Anyway, If Medicare survives up to when they want to voucherize.. ALL will be given vouchers.. Then you have your choice to use your voucher for Medicare, or some other private insurance company.. Either one you choose, when medical expenses go up, you have to pay the difference.. Sorry, it is the only thing that makes sense, because if given an option for Medicare as it is run today, or taking a voucher to an outside insurance, only the 1 percenters will have the money to buy the private insurance. That will not be enough people going to a voucher system to do them any good. Now as to Obamacare, (which if kept may start slowing the growing cost of health care as it seems to do in other countries with socialized medicine, like Canada, England & Israel..) Who knows what Romney wants to do.. One day it is to remove it, then it is to alter it, then to remove it, on Meet the Press this weekend he is back to making changes to it.. That and other issues I think Romney would be best to stop talking about. Just direct everyone to a web site where you tell him if you are a "Tea-party" conservative, moderate Republican, or an Independent.. Then based on your answer, the website can pull up the rhetoric you most like would want to hear. I don't know how that will play out during the debates though.. Perhaps we can rig him up a roulette Wheel, and swing it to see which one of his multi-choice answers he wants to give.

I don't take those as laws from religion. They are laws logical for living within a community. They would be created with our without religion. Societies without religion and those with non-christian religions will come up with similar laws. Accept maybe the blue laws, which died because you couldn't enforce them, "Bare false witness" which also isn't followed, many times by religious (remember the witch hunts..), You are your brothers keeper (which also is not followed especially by the Republicans who claim they are the more religious party.) Anyway it is not against the law to turn your back on your neighbor. The mother may be stressed to give birth. But, her stress will have nothing to do with her right to abandon that which she never wanted in the first place. Especially in order for her to live, she must go back to work. Some may keep it.. Most will not. Currently you have a few children who the mother decided to bare the child, yet give up, a few children who become orphan with no relatives to adopt will be nothing compared to a society that forces birth of millions to throw the child on the trash heap to die of neglect because it is too expensive to pay for their keep. It is the math of the excessive mass of the unwanted babies, that will not allow you the same outcome as what you currently have with the few babies who mothers choose to give birth, but give the child up. Your religious bubble just can not comprehend that forcing a women to have a baby does not cause her to suddenly "get religion" and feel responsible for said life.. Some may get belated maternal instincts, but not those that resent the loss of their rights by someone who has no right to take it away from them, nor those who could never care for that child because they can not work and tend a baby, and with that mix both would be homeless.

The spay and neuter comment of dogs and cats, go hand in hand with SP comment.. The mothers of America and Europe have killed off more innocent human life than Hitler and Stalin --- combined Yes there may have been a lot of abortions.. Add to that the Republicans who want to dismantle planned parenthood which is much more about education and contraceptions to keep people from getting pregnat in the first place.. Plus the desire to remove contraception from a womens health plan (and to be honest, the desire that no women use contraception).. The effect is the same as making it illegal to spay or neuter a cat or dog.. They far exceed the number of families wanting to adopt. Now match it to the Republican concept that society should feels no responsibility for the living. That means warehousing them until they die of neglect. As far as I am concerned allowing a person to die from neglegt or lack of healthcare because their lifetime cap on their insurance ran out, or they could not afford healthcare to begin with, is much more of an intentional murder.. Maybe my view is because of the fact these people currently born do have loved ones who care for them. When this person dies, they will continue life, feeling guilty that they did not have the money to aid them, even if they go so far as to give up everything to the point the whole family is now living on the street. Also as Beavah says the belief in when life begins with a fetus is based on religious belief. You cannot legislate laws forcing people to follow your religious beliefs. All you will get is rebellion, and many unwanted births that the mothers will feel no responsibility to care for their health in order to have healthy babies, nor will feel any responsibility to once born.

Well faith is one thing, science is another.. Faith is a belief without any proof, I wouldn't call that logical. But I what I can not accept is that life is considered SOOOOO... important when not born.. But, SOOOOOO... worthless once born.. Let's go to war, and start new wars.. Who cares about our young soldiers who dies.. Also lets remove aid for the returning vets. Both parties have supporters of the death penalty. But where the Democates are split, Republicans are very strongly pro the dealth penalty. Republicans wanting to go back to health care having a lifetime cap. When you blow through it whether you are 1 year old or 85 years old, then your only option is to die. Cutting Medicad.. This is mostly our old people in nursing homes, and also the people with permanent disabilities like the mentally retarded.. They have the only option to die.. So.. Why is this unwanted fertilized egg so important, but the people who are currently living so unimportant? Science may be mixed on when a fetus a human life, but they 100% agree that a living person is human life.. What makes that unwanted fetus so much more important then the people who are already on this plant? Why once born do you think it is right to wash your hands of your responsibility for it?

Yes, even my Catholic side of my family, can think logically. You are pulling out the parts you want to look at.. You are ignoring the fact that these children born of mothers who did not want them, who did nothing to be concerned with the health of the unborn, who continued with their drug use, or alcohol use. Those who will be born in a republican world will be born into a world which seems to care about a fertilize egg, and considers it life to be protected. If they are born with defects will be born in a world of Republicans that will no longer care about their life. They will not have health insurance, they will be born in families that can not afford the health insurance, or have a lifetime caps. Will be born of people who can not care for them even if they would have with the help. They will be expected to die.. Look up the condition of warehouse children in other countries. They live in cribs with very little human touch. Possibly the only touch may be in getting an occasional diaper change, but not as often as needed.. Even the healthy children will wither in these conditions, mentally and physically.. Some never learn to walk. Also under a Republican world will have no health care. I doubt they will get little of anything else. Not healthy food, poor education if they ever develope or live long enough to be educated.. They will just be warehoused until they die. If they do live (very rare, most will die before then), don't expect them to be a very productive member of society.. They will not have been given any skills to live in society. Personally I care about the living, more so then an unwanted fertilized egg that some religions would call human. But science will not at least within the first trimester. I also care about the mental health of a women who was raped, and would never ask her to go through the mental trama to be forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy that would keep her from healing.. These are the women who will comit suicide.. (This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Just comming back from vacation.. Sorry I pretty much missed this topic. I admidt I havent' read through the whole thing, it may take me a while to, so I am responding to Beavah's initial post, though at this time the thread may have moved into a topic about Kangaroos in Australia.. So sorry if I am out of sync with the discussion at time, over time I will get caught up. But, the intial topic, I felt compelled to respond too.. Although my relatives are for Obama, my in-laws are for Romney, and they were the ones we were vacationing with. I do believe some is racist. You go to some of the comments after a news article, and the pure anger and hatred and yes, some unmasked pure racial slurs.. But, looking at my in-laws.. I don't think it is ALL racists.. My in-laws it is just they fear and believe the lies put out by Republicans on Medicare.. They heard it 2 years back when Republicans used it to take over the House.. It is so believed that they were not even open to discussion.. They are so old, it wasn't worth upsetting them to try to open up discussion and true debate, and pure logic such as which party supports entitlement programs, and which party is all about tearing them down. So if you have to figure out which party may be lying why would on this one policy would they do a total body swap on it?) Nope, they didn't want to listen.. They were scared and brain-washed. Brother-in-law & I talked a long time.. He really is not prejudice at all. I really believe that. He is a business man who felt hard hit by the economy.. He use to employ illegal immigrants, he said Americans didn't want the jobs. Now he only employs Americans, and want them to kick the illegal immigrants out.. He says part of it was he thought they really wanted to be immigrants but over time found they did not. Yet without paying taxes they were a drag on our hospitals and school systems.. (I feel Democrats are being too lenient, but Republicans too harsh. Yet I can't vocalize the right mix.) He is very upset paying for welfare, and other programs of help.. Strangely, his views were some I felt when unemployment was low.. When work was out there, I felt people could find work, and so should find work.. Now, I see a lot of good people who would love to find work, and try real hard to get another job, but they cannot find that position.. I guess I was against welfare when I felt anyone who half-heartedly tried could find work, but I am for it when I see a sincere need from people who tried to work hard and play by the rules and is hard hit and really need that safety net that when employed some of their taxes paid for, but now that it is needed, the safety net is pulled out from under them.  This is my husbands side of the family.. Both mother/father-in-laws and brother/sister-in-laws though Catholic, disagree with the Republicans stance on Pro-life.. Both groups are pro-choice.. This was before I hit them with the question of what the Republicans planned to do to feed/house/educate and raise all the unwanted babies, that women were forced to birth and then gave up because they are either disabled (think of all the babies born from drug or alcohole addicted mothers, besides families who just would not have the finances or time and patience to raise).. Think about the fact these families will not get any government aid to raise these children.. The only option they will have is to disown them. Then there will just be the women not ready for a family who will be angry over not having a choice. They will refuse to raise these unwanted children, simply because they will be angry that their freedom to decide for themselves was taken a way.. "I didn't want this baby, you (government) did.. Here you go.." Sure some of the healthy babies will be adopted. People wanting to adopt will not have to go out of country.. But, there will be more babies born then couples wanting to adopt.. Think about making the ability to spay or neuter cats and dogs.. So how will America warehouse these unwanted babies? How will they pay for raising them? And once they reach adulthood, how much of a burden on society will these unwanted babies continue to be? Anyway, some is definitely racist.. I have no doubt Beavah's friend drew this conclusion talking to his in-laws who were deciding due to their prejudice.. I also think, that all the voter suppression going on in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Michigan etc.. This I have come to believe is two-fold 1) Republican doing it solely to get an unfair advantage.. 2) People who are prejudice against blacks, Hispanics, poor and young.. A feeling they are too stupid to vote the right way. But, I also see that some people just believe the Republican rhetoric and it has frightened them.. And some truly believe Ive got mine, youre on your own. Yet dont understand that they are not wealthy enough to be in the group this will be earmarked for.

Welcome to the forums.. I don't know much about cubscouts as I have been away from it for some time. But just wanted to say welcome.. There may be some old threads on Camping activities for a pack? Some people can navagate the search tool here, but not me.. Otherwise most of us just go to the topics discussed in the last 24 hours (I even have my link set up so it sorts by time last posted to, in descending order. It is just best that if you want to talk about it, create a new thread on that subject. Posting to an old topic will move the thread back into the list of posts withing the last 24 hours and some newbies may go through each forum topic and pull out some long dead post to ask something new on it. But, that just is confusing, like do I need to re-read 5 pages of a year dead thread to find that the question being asked today is slightly different, and at the end of the dead subject.. Anyway we are always happy to run a topic around the flag pole for the umteenth time. With school starting up, boards look a little busier.. But, in the summertime we get board and pull out a topic or two that has been hashed over to death before, just to while away the time.

All these rebel councils should find a way to link together for a united front.

NJCubScout - Second, it sounds like the IH, a Catholic priest, was ready to let this openly gay man remain as a leader until the council told him that the church would lose its charter for the troop. What's up with THAT? Has the Catholic church adopted the local option on openly gay leaders in Boy Scouts? Or did this particular pastor just not get the memo? Most Catholic priests fell in line with the memo from the Pope & Bishops to crack down on all social issues that were starting to get a little lax.. But, some priests and nuns flipped the Pope the bird so to speak.. There were some priests who have stood up in their churches to say, I'm suppose to preach to you about this, but our congregation does not work that way.. Their congregation gets up and cheers them.. Many Nuns are also speaking out, they see their mission as helping the poor, sick and needy. They think this is enough. I don't know if this church was one of the brave souls to preach they would not follow the Pope & Bishops plans.. Maybe they just conviently lost the canned sermons they were issued, or read them with no heart and conviction.. "OK, words from the Pope.. Blah, Blah, Blah.. On to the next thing on the agenda." Anyway in deed, they were not willing to follow the memo from on high to crack down. The Catholic church has some brave souls. They are not quite the Borg.. (Beavah loves me saying that, as then he can tell me how much I am prejudice against the Catholic Church..)

I think I would elect any atheist who cares about the good of society over any religious conservative who feels that individualism (over family and working as a community for education and rodes and other needed infostructure) is a better society. Then again religion (or lack of) had little to do with my political vote. I never really stopped to ask about it. So Merlyn, when are you getting into the political race?.. You have my vote over many in the Republican party.

Packsaddle Moosetracker, can you even consider the possibility that altruism is an illusion that you and others have? Can you consider the possibility that individual enlightened self-interest CAN lead to a structured and ordered society? Do you not realize that this is precisely the economic system that we live in and it is possible that society is structured and ordered as a result of related or similar interactions? What is so wrong about individualism? I might concede that it is in my self-interest to live in a society whose members care about each other. To have a family and friends that I can care about over myself, but can trust that they too will care about me. I know I will work harder for others happiness then for myself.. For example when I was single dinner would consist of the very same easy to make meal, night after nignt. I work harder in my job for the benefit of my family. I know my family makes me a better person. But, to live in a society that thinks the best thing is to only care for yourself and the right that if you are fortunate to have power through birth, marriage or possibly your own work with lady luck on your side.. That this power gives you the right to be a dictator over everyone else. For example all the various new voter suppression rules to keep the minorities and the poor from voting. Michigans Republican Governor using the Emergency management in order to walk in and overtake various towns that are run by Democrates, kicking out all elected officials, firing the towns police, fire and teachers. From what I heard some teachers are expected to teach classes of 80+ students.. Fine number for a college class, but not for grade school. And for that jerk Akins and Paul Ryan to work together to create some sort of heretic bill that defines rape as only if the female fights back. So they seem to think they have the power for all the US to discount any rape that the women does not fight back, such as being drugged, having a gun to their head, child rape where the child is too young to know what to do, being held hostage for months or years or holding hostage a womens child or spouse and threatening their life.. None of those would be considered legitamite rape.. Republicans deciding the average voter does not need to know the details of things like their plan for medicare, or how they plan to reduce the deficit, or the loopholes they are proposing to remove from taxes etc. etc. Just continue to say Us Good.. Democrat Bad... I guess packsaddle.. The answer is Yes.. My self-interest is that I do not see it a good thing to be lied to, kept in the dark, or dictated to by my head of state.. Kind of reminds me of a government lead by Hitlar or Stalin.. Or at the very best a government run by the old European monarchies..

SELF-SERVING.. You don't need to answer to anyone but YOURSELF. Therefore, Romney & Ryan will force through that which benefit themselves. If you are a one percenter (like them) then you may ride on their coat tails. This may be the radical right. The tea party philosophy. But some republicans still care about conservative values like looking after their own families. Others may care that their families will suffer if they are not a one percenter and have to pay more in their taxes to carry the loss of the millionaires and billionaires not paying anything in taxes, stocking it away in accounts or opening businesses in other countries where they can get slave labor so they can make more of a profit. If your family depends on more than the man as the bread winner, you may want fair wages for your wife, so that your family can be self-supporting, or maybe if something happens to you an accident that is disabling or your death. You might want to see her have a fair income so that she can continue to take care of the family.. I have heard even as a state bill in the most conservative states, this personage bill that Ryan is trying to push through as a national bill is not passed. You may be conservative enough to support it. But most people when their wife or daughter become sick or hurt where it becomes a choice of saving the woman or letting both the woman and the fetus die, they will choose to save at least one life. If Ryan gets his personage bill then your wife/daughter will die if she is unfortunate enought to be pregnant when needing medical attention. If you are a businessman hopefully you may survive if your business is building yachts or luxury cars. Most businesses rely on a strong middle class. If we return to the upper class and the lower class with no middle class. Then even if you use to be a one percenter, you wont be if you are not simply living by making the money you have work for you, or can survive on a business from just the ultra rich. Self sufficiency needs someone to allow you a fair playing field at least. (This message has been edited by moosetracker)

I see it this the way perceive it. Peregrinator may see it differently. Ranking people between saint and scum of the earth.. This is a popular ranking among many. Merlyn don't shoot me. I am not saying this is my opinion, just a popular opinion. Saint: Religious who truely cares for their community and mankind. Average: Religious who doesn't care for community and mankind. (self-serving) Atheist who truely cares for their community and mankind. Scum-of-earth: Religious who doesn't care for community and mankind. (self-serving). Now of course this is simplified. People will put in other prejudices.. Race, sexual orientation etc. Anyway, whether Ryan can change public opinion of him from a Rand follower to that of a Catholic, means the difference between him being Ranked "Average" or "scum-of-the-earth".

What Merlyn says. Paul Ryan could say exactly what he has said for years, and never sited Ayn Rand as the person who shaped it. He would just be an uncaring, self-centered politician. But, Ayn Rand was an atheist. This causes his Catholic Leaders to not want to associate with him and his policies. If he is associated to atheists rather then Catholics it seems the voting population will not vote for an atheists, similar to how they use to not vote for Catholics, blacks or women. The other bars are starting to come down, but not athiests.. I think it was somewhere that I heard there is only one atheist in Congress. I don't know how it works out for Govenors or mayors.. Perhaps Merlyn might know.

I think for those of us who will not vote Romney/Ryan anyway, it is just an interesting and fun fact, as well as fun to watch him squirm, twist and lie his way out of his firmly held very public comments that he has based his political values on Ayn Rand. I did not know this, but I guess it hurts to be an atheist in politics, Republican or democrat. Few atheists get into office. But, when you add in the fact that Republicans tend to be you conservative, religious base.. Ryan now wants to be seen as Catholic, with no Ayn Rand ties except for maybe in his youth.. Some Catholics are not letting him slink back into the fold that easily. Of course he was a kind of quirky Ayn Rand fan anyway. All for her political views to be totally self-sufficient, but then his views towards womens rights were very conservative catholic. Those who laugh at him now distancing himself from Rand state Rand would have never wanted his support anyway, as she did believe in women rights. So she would never have been happy with his admiration. This is similar to some musical band Ryan says is one of his favorites. Rage against the Machine does not want Ryan for a fan. They say Ryan may have a whole lot of rage. A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions.

Which is why now that he is slated for VP he is trying to etch-a-sketch, or disown her "retroactively".. But it was required reading for all any intern in Congress who worked for him. In 2005 he gave a speech praising Ayn Rand for a group who are Rand fans.. In many speeches he has given he sites Ayn Rand.. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand.html http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/paul-ryan-book-club-shrugging-off-ayn-rand/ Here is one of many videos of Ryan speaking on Rand. This one is dated 2009. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Paul+Ryan+and+Ayn+rand&view=detail&mid=38FCA8587191B29C755438FCA8587191B29C7554&first=0

I have to admit I kind of flounced over some of that middle of what is evil to get back to what he thinks about Paul Ryan. But, I think that having a logical debate over what is evil in the middle of Whoopie, one of ours is on the Republican ticket is pretty amusing.. So, I got: 1. Whoopie, one of ours is on the Republican ticket. And one from my diocese, so I guess I have to root for my home team! 2. What is evil?.. Definitely, abortion, homosexuality, etc. 3. Not helping the poor & sick may be evil but not intrinsically evil. (Or at least it isnt something that is the fault of my diocese having taught it to him.) 4. OK, everyone polarize and figure out which is the worst of two evils in the next presidential election.. We will get through this. I think I got from that he was going with Romney/ Ryan, out of some loyalty, and careful internal analysis of which he personally thought was more evil.. But, with the enthusiasm of a limp dishrag. Not a great rally of the troops there. Not even a great endorsement. Like I said, before the end of the Republican primaries. Catholic leadership was preparing it's flock to vote as a unit against Obama. Now they all have quieted down, and each are having their own personal rationalizing as to which is the less of two evils to vote for. Some really don't see Ryan as much of a Catholic due to his love for Ayn Rand's philosophy. Which of course now he is taking his queue from etch-a-sketch man and erase that association Packsaddle BSA President - honorary President what's the difference? But, you are right. Having this battle under this thread title, will keep many who might argue politics but not sexual orientation rights in BSA away (This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Oh, I don't expect the tea-party Republican to cross over. But, I was an independent that voted Republican pretty consistantly until Bush jr tanked the USA.. That is your president that should be espounged from history of ever having been president. Lies about dangers from foreign countries when there was none. Spending for wars with no way to pay for them. Putting in place a stimulous plan with no way to pay for it. And the entire tanking of the USA into what would have been a depression if not for Obama's actions to pull it from total depression back to the worst recession, almost depression.. For me, Obama should have saved Medicare $700 billion in Fraud and waste, and left it at that rather then rolling most of what he saved back in to close the donut hole of things medicare was not paying for. Yes, it helped senior citizen, I am sure they were happy for it, but they were not expecting it. Still that plan is much better then giving the money cut from fraud & waste back to the insurance companies, and then remove that same amount from the seniors benefits (or basically make them personally pay for that fraud & waste.) He also should have pushed the Democrats in Congress to not except the extention of the stimulous package for anyone. Even now, Democrats may be standing up to Republicans pushing for the Stimulous for everyone again. I say let it end for everyone. I know Democrats want it to end for everyone then bring it back for everyone up to the first 250,000 of everyones earnings. I can not blame him for not being able to control a Congress when the Republicans all signed the Norquist pledge to not accept anything the President wanted to accomplish. Rather then debating, and finding workable compromises. Given the hostile congress he had, I think stabilizing us and the slight improvement in employment after B Obamacare, I don't know if it is good or bad. But, since it is basically Romneycare.. I am not voting for Romney to get rid of it. Anyway, I do know of several who hate Obama, but will vote for him rather then Romney who wants to take us back to where Bush left off and continue downhill from there.

Your response give me some hope that at least the politically aware conservatives will look at the whole picture of what the Romney/Ryan ticket proposes, and see there is far worse in what they are proposing then the benefits to the conservative social agenda.. I was surprised to read that the catholic priests & bishops for all their uprising on Obamacare, are also very against Romney & Ryan.. I was not so surprised by the nuns as many of them were not in such a tissy over Obamacare, and are having problems with the Popes & Bishops about caring more for the poor and needy and not so much over the conservatives social agenda. I guess that might be why they are so quiet, they don't know who to root for now. So hopefully we will get some votes from Conservatives for Obama because he is simply not as bad as Romney.. I am also hoping Romney's flip flopping (and now having Ryan also flip flop) will help to keep conservatives from turning out, because they won't trust what he is standing for.. I've heard of flip flopping over a few years, you can call it changed attitudes.. But when you do so 4 to 5 times in a single week it gets a little confusing.

That's good, because if the rest of us need to give up our social saftey net and pay more in taxes by loosing tax writeoffs like house mortgage, child deductions, college deductions and medical deductions. So that Ryan and Romney and the othe millionaires & billionares can pay $0 in taxes by not only getting the current tax deduction but 20% more on top of that for their PERSONAL income (not buisness) meaning they have chose to take this money out of working in their buisnesses.. Well, then we will all need to look to survival by the charity handouts of the rich. None of us will see a dime from Romney though, unless your a mormon.. The only charity he gives is what his church EXPECTS all thier members to give.. Not a penny more to them, or to anyone or anything else. By the way talking about taxes.. I guess whatever is in his taxes is so incriminating he just will never show it. I believe he paid 13% or more because he said so and I should "trust him" just as much as he tried to hide his taxes in MA when running for Govenor and wouldn't show his taxes but said he filed those years as a MA resident and we should "Trust him" and he was found out to have lied.. I worry he may win, because in order to loose, people need to wake up and follow politics and not decide who to elect based onto the comercials they watch.. Romney can outspend Obama but has sold his soul to the 1 percenters to do it.

Very funny.. So NJCubScouter... Where have you been recently?.. Merlyn???? Have you been visiting more Catholic sites then atheist sites?? I got WhiteWater rafting advertising.. Earlier I had a negative ad on Obama from the Romney camp.. I have been keeping up with the political news.. I haven't looked for WW info, but my son could have looked something up using my computer.

Was this our big long, almost reached a record in pages post!.. Hmmm... Don't think it can really be recreated.. We were kindof winding down and going through the same loop of arguments on the 3rd or 4th pass.. So close! *sigh*

Yummm.... Koolaid good.... Seriously I think I was fair in pointing out some reasons why at this point in his life, WB might not be the right choice.. I didn't say go. go. go. But, I do think it is great if you take it at the right stage in your life. Also if he is serious about becoming a DE (or some other scouting professional). I know around here they do not let our DE's go to WB until 2 to 3 years into their job.. They will not let them have the time off. Some of them seriously needed to know how to work with people rather then just try to micro-manage or attempt to be a dictator with a staff of volunteers who know you don't have any power over what they do and don't do.

Missed the "unofficial member of District Committee". Yes my son & his fiance took that route too until they were 21. Son's fiance was voted in as "member at large" at 20 when we did our yearly vote, but he had to sit on putting in her paperwork until she turned 21. Like SP says it is a ridiculous rule. I can see something of they want you still reporting to the SM until the age of 21. But the district could use the energy of the 18-21 year olds, and sometimes at troop level it might be good to move the 18 yo away from being direct contact with the youth until he learns the difference between being a youth member and one of the gang, and being an adult leader. It is not like the committee's job is so difficult..

Yes Basement was not thrilled with his WB but from talking to him, his staff did not run it right at all, it was more about the staffers having fun and the participants were a second thought. As I stated you need a good staff running it, who put the participants first. I think what Basement stated a JLOW, we call NYLT (National Youth Leadership Training.) They are very similar, just one is geared to the youth to take and one is for the Adults to take.