packsaddle

Scoutfish, a few years ago I was one of those persons doing the procurement of those garage doors. But I and all of my counterparts understood the profound difference between a garage door and a nuclear reactor. I am merely asking vol_scouter to clarify his claim that "Carter gave North Korea the reactor technology to allow them to make atomic weapons." The Carter administration was in the 1970's and the light water reactor vol_scouter refers to was part of an agreement in the 1990's. AND in 2003, the USA stopped that program. I want vol_scouter to explain the details of his claim. I ask this because I have read conflicting claims that "North Korea's main reactor, where practically all of its plutonium has been produced, is a 5MWe gas-graphite moderated Magnox type reactor." This means that NK's bomb material was produced from Soviet reactors, long before the LWR agreement. If vol_scouter has a way to 'connect the dots' that really does lead to Carter, decades after he was President, I would really like to understand how those dots are connected. It's that simple. And I'm still waiting.....(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

You claimed the connected dots. Therefore YOU should make it clear. How did a private citizen 'without official authorization' manage to broker a deal involving multiple nations including the US? ...about supplying North Korea with nuclear reactors? Those dots DON'T connect. Or else he had powers of persuasion that border on miraculous. Give us the WHOLE story. If you are going to lay the blame for North Korea's nuclear weapons at the feet of a person who wasn't even a nuclear engineer, and who was decades after his presidency, then YOU are going to have to do more than admonishing the rest of us to connect the dots.

Found the only damage so far. The wind ripped the cypress shakes off the roof of my wood shed. I only noticed this today and I'm doing the repairs this weekend. Also picked up a neatly stacked set of hub caps I was going to use to replace some damaged ones on my daughter's car. I finally found them scattered across two neighboring properties. But aside from these things, the odd tree limb, and a LOT of leaves, we were unscathed. I had just cleaned the gutters and overnight they were completely filled with storm debris, but I'm definitely NOT complaining. It's almost as if the storm hit and skipped around.

Vol_scouter, there is still a discrepancy on the dates. When do you think the Carter administration gave those light water reactors to North Korea? KEDO didn't exist during his administration. The only LWR technology that I can find reference to was in 1995 or thereabouts, decades after Carter. You still have not clarified this.

I didn't see any reference in the pdf document earlier than 1995 when KEDO was first formed. This is in the first paragraph of the document. When I searched for 'Carter', there were no matches. Huh? Wanna try again? One of us is REALLY confused. You said, "Carter gave North Korea the reactor technology to allow them to make atomic weapons." In 1975 North Korea was already preparing to separate the plutonium from the graphite reactors that the Soviets had given them long before. Carter was hardly responsible for that material. Moreover, your choice of words implies motive, hardly within your expertise or any sort of knowledge, I would say. Is that a poor choice of words or just an opinion? Edit: the reference you gave from the article I cited also referred to the 1990's.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I liked Gerald Ford...but then I don't play golf. I was absolutely disgusted when that great Christian leader, Bob Jones of Bob Jones University, referred to Betty Ford as a slut in one of his public statements. I will never ever forget that. I didn't agree with the pardon though, and I seriously doubt he was endowed with genius. But I guess Ford would be my pick. Perhaps not regal enough for those who like that kind of thing. But he was fair. So far no one has shown me one of his lies. I also liked Ike. He played around, evidently, during the war or maybe after that as well, but I think he was very wise when he warned all of us about the risks of the growing military-industrialist complex. But then, he had already contributed greatly to it...oh well. Tough role model due to the need for military background. Let's see, Kennedy..oops, he also played around. No one seemed to mind back then, did they? Role model for the 'playboy' President. I did like the way he backed Kruschev down. Nixon...what can I say, I blame myself, having voted for the guy twice. Role model for the Sopranos. Ford already noted Carter..thought he was honest too until vol-scouter outed him. Role model for past presidents. Reagan...did pretty well for an Alzheimer's victim. Almost everything he did was therefore plausibly deniable and the lies merely came from his handlers. Role model for doddering but likable old people whose simple view of the world resonates with the majority. Bush...wimp. Inadequate. Role model for polite Patrician elitists who think they are just sooooo smart but are merely average. Also lied about the reasons for Gulf One. Clinton...all of a sudden we're concerned about indiscretion, ok. Role model for males willing to take advantage of subordinate females, combined with a belief that they can't get caught. Balanced the budget though, I was really hoping the country would see the wisdom in that. I was wrong. He lied too. But at least no one got killed as a result unlike... Bush II...pants on fire. This is my vote for the worst President of all time. Reversed the fiscal responsibility of Clinton and mired us in debacle. Personification of arrogance without merit. Willing to casually turn his back on the principles of this nation. A role model for every coke addict whose parents have the connections, money, and friends to put him into office. Obama...my main beef with him is that he has adopted many of the policies of his predecessor. He is a role model for minorities and I give him credit for that. But then, once the car you're in is over the cliff edge, who cares what person is behind the wheel? I'm really hoping that the next line will have the name of Trump on it. It IS what we all deserve.

Thanks vol_scouter, and yes, that claim of being a nuclear engineer would constitute a lie in my book as well. For anyone to claim with authority something that they either know to be false or know that they are not authoritative constitutes a deception that I could fairly call a lie. I checked about your claim, "Carter gave North Korea the reactor technology to allow them to make atomic weapons. For that he got the Nobel Peace prize - that speaks poorly of both." There is no mention of North Korea in the Nobel Prize ceremony award speech. In fact, unless the Nobel Prize committee is also engaging in a deception, it seems that the primary reason for the award to Carter had to do with his long-term involvement with promoting peace, especially in the middle-East. Here is a snippet: "Jimmy Carter should of course have been awarded the Peace Prize a long time ago. It is no secret today that the Norwegian Nobel Committee wished to give him the Prize in 1978, together with Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin. A mere formality prevented Carter from receiving his well-earned Peace Prize at that time: he had not been nominated by the 1 February deadline. And no member of the Committee nominated him at the Committee's first meeting. They could of course not have known in February what was to happen at Camp David in September. In September, the Committee wanted to add Carter's name to the list, but the statutes of the Nobel Foundation made that impossible." http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/presentation-speech.html Moreover, because YOU claim to have expertise in the field of physics and nuclear science, I hold your opinion as authoritative. However, according to several sources, including this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_North_Korea the nuclear program in North Korea began in the 1950's with the support of the Soviet Union, culminating in their reactor program in the early 1960's. Unless there is some kind of time warp that had Carter in office decades prior to 1976, I must question your assessment. More to the point, if I applied the standard for truth that you applied to Carter, how should I characterize your claim?

Shortridge, it's the MOM who is disabled. jamist649, I strongly sympathize with the moral conflict that you feel over this. I have been there myself. Scoutfish is 'doing his best' to suggest solutions and I am not going to disagree with his suggestions although from your post it sounds like you have already thought of some of those things. What I write might sound harsh but it needs to be stated. YOU are not responsible for this boy. Ultimately, it is the mom who IS responsible for her son. In your situation, I would be concerned about already being overloaded needlessly by a pack that had grown into a "second full time 'job'". I know how that is. I also know that the key to taking some weight off of you in terms of running the pack, as well as finding solutions for this needy family, is the presence or the creation of a strong pack committee, one in which the members have been trained and can understand both their responsibilities as well as having an active interest in meeting those responsibilities. As it is, from what I read in your post, you already feel 'snowed under' by your 'grown' responsibilities. This will burn you out even without the added weight of special situations like you describe. You need to be able to say 'no'. This is something that the good person inside you will find difficult but you need to be able to say it for a lot of the things you would like to help on. Instead, you (or that committee I mentioned) need to find OTHER members of the pack to address needs (delegating responsibility)...and this extends to this special situation with the disabled mom. The ability to say 'no', to delegate responsibility, to rely on a strong and supportive committee...all these things will help you AND the pack AND persons like this special situation. If you do NOTHING at this time, the situation will not be worse than it already is. That is not the worst outcome. One worst outcome is that YOU take on the responsibility to solve this problem rather than delegate this task to someone else. If your CO is a church it might already have a committee designed to address special needs like this. There may be other charities with interests along these lines or perhaps local government agencies which can help. But...DELEGATE the task of searching for solutions TO SOMEONE ELSE in the pack...better yet, let the committee address the problem. Be kind but firm with the mom that in the case that you cannot find a solution, that until such a solution CAN be found, there are no good options available. DO NOT adopt this boy yourself. I know from personal experience how bad this feels. I remind you that merely knowing about such a situation does not automatically bestow the responsibility of finding a solution to it, no matter how much it feels like it does. For the sake of you, the pack, and really the needy family as well, you must understand this. Good luck

I'm trying to remember a time that Carter (or Ford for that matter) lied to the people. Anyone?

Shucks, I'm not going to spoil Beavah's entertainment. Mine too. So as long as we keep playing nice, no problem. Besides, I'm always hoping someone like Brent or BS-87, someone, will bring a perspective I haven't thought of so I can think about it too. You just never know for sure....

These days, considering what I see young people doing on the internet, I'd say posts about the OA on the internet are to be expected. 'It' is all 'out there' as they say. And just like those embarrassing photos of me one Halloween (and I'll never give you the link) once they're on the web they're just like Herpes (but not love)....they're forever. The 'secrecy' aspect is a kind of myth that we allow the boys to believe so they can have a little more fun. But really, if you want to learn all the 'secrets', it doesn't take much effort. 'Odd' is not the term I would use these days to describe some aspect of OA revealed on the web. 'Unexpected', maybe, perhaps even 'surprising'...but not 'odd'. 'Odd' is what my battle-axe Aunt is....and her house full of cats. What IS it about women and cats? She's not even eating them!

Let me be the first to say, Desertrat, you're not in Kansas anymore... I just couldn't resist.

Whew, that's a relief. Although 'pompous' is mild compared to some of the things my wife says about me...in a nurturing, loving way of course. Anyway, your description was so vivid...wow. I could just picture the woman's visit. And I think I worked with the same guy years ago. You're right, there's no point sometimes in even trying to get through. (I try anyway, you never know for sure...)

Schiff's just got his priorities straight. "Truth, justice, and the American way!!!" Da....da,da....da,da,da,da...da..da,da..da..da...da,da,da,da......

I am not alone in the observation that for a very long time, America has had a growing crack problem.

"At times when we sound off about this we come off sounding very pompous." I guess that's me but I thought it sounded Mormon. Unless Mormons are pompous. In that case all is well. Mostly I wanted to provide some perspective and Moggie did that a lot better. We're gaging against yesterday for how bad things are now when if we think about the way things are most other places on the planet, we've got it pretty well. But...going on through Eamonn's list, let's see: I'm good for the grass mowing, don't do that often.. the 5 cars - own fewer, only one on premium so that's a work in progress. Gave up alcohol years ago so I'm good for that one too. Not sure about the house. How big is 'big'? Mine's almost a carbon copy (pun intended) of George Bush's, minus the desert. Is that bad? Anyway, I was just trying to make people feel better about the gas prices.

I was concerned about GaHillbilly and a few others as well but I'm fine. SeattlePioneer, the obvious conclusion is that God hates the Bible Belt. Edit: Hey, what's with the 'scope crosshairs on the silhouette of a swan that I see right now in the right panel? Does Sarah want someone to shoot a swan?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

....waking up...what are we arguing over now, the word 'fear'? Is that right, we're arguing about the way we argue? What?

"So why are you afraid of people who meet the standards that I outlined?" The best response I can give to this is that I have no fears under the standards as they exist now. And because the standards as they exist now would include ALL of those eligible under your proposed standards, your question makes no sense. I see no useful purpose for your further restrictions except to address YOUR fears with regard to people who meet current standards but not those which you propose. So...how about that quote from BS-87? Did I interpret it incorrectly?

BS-87 quote in his reply to Eamonn: "Your son is 100% American. He's a native born citizen. The only thing he won't be able to do as an American is hold the nation's two highest executive positions." How else am I to interpret this?

Acco40, you must realize that these kinds of things are out there because they're easy. As opposed to the heavy lifting of constructing well-reasoned arguments. So try not to let this stuff get under your skin. The fringe is always going to be there. We have to live with it...maybe chuckle once in a while and shake our heads. Edit: I keep forgetting to ask (sorry Vicki, this is just for the guys), how about those certificates of circumcision? Anyone ever get one of those?...The certificate - I mean.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Eamonn, it works the same in other states as well. No one in my family has any record in hand similar to the one just published by Obama. We all have documents similar to the certificate he released long ago. And we, like you, had to send away for those in order to get our passports. Merlyn is probably right, we'd have to make some special petition to get the 'long form'...I'm not sure it even exists for my children. The Blancmange playfully suggested that I was somehow responsible for all this and I guess that means I'm thinking about running for President or something. But I think the furor over the veto of the Arizona 'Birther Bill' coupled with the astonishing polls showing a huge percentage of Republicans of the opinion Obama was not born in the US, along with the idiotic and sometimes incomprehensible statements by The Donald...all contributed to the sideshow and Obama just got tired of having that distraction around. My advice to vol_scouter or BS-87 is to go for it! Put as much energy and time and resources as necessary to change the laws and to get things the way you want them to be. And I will continue to support The Donald as the Republican nominee. "Help me, Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're [our] only hope."

"The NEED is for only those who have had a completely devoted, American life, and have been raised by people who themselves have lived as American citizens to represent our nation as its figurehead and chief executive." ..like Timothy McVeigh. This is nonsense. It argues that no person outside of those who are born in this country to two parents also born in this country can have a completely devoted, American life, raised by people who themselves have lived as American citizens. Your argument is as fallacious as one which argues that no person born in this country to two parents also born in this country can NOT have a completely devoted, American life, raised by people who themselves have lived as American citizens. Unless you think Timothy was one of the good guys, I suppose. And...incidentally and fortunately...you're completely wrong about Eamonn's son. He is perfectly eligible to run and, if he is elected, to serve as President or VP once he attains the age of 35. You might not THINK he is but tough luck, he is. I would be tempted to sympathize with Beavah on this....but on behalf of all us bona fide space aliens, I disavow any knowledge of your abduction. It must have been from some other even-more-alien dimension. Edit: The Blancmange, you think I'm joking about being a space alien don't you? I can tell you that the produce alone was worth the trip. And...on 21 May when all of you milk-sucking skin sacks are assimilated by my forces, you'll begin to understand.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I agree with Eamonn. The strength of this nation has historically depended on the energy and talents of wave after wave of immigrants. To disenfranchise them in the manner vol_scouter suggests would not only be insulting, it could be damaging and I would consider it to be downright unAmerican. If we were to actually adopt anything like that, it would have to be justified on the basis of a critical, essential need. So what IS that need, vol_scouter? What purpose would such restrictions serve in your mind? How would the nation actually benefit from the restrictions you are promoting?

Thanks Moggie, some of us really need some realistic perspective on things.