packsaddle

Do you think that Krauthammer is one of his left wing cronies?

Krauthammer just published a fair opinion on this topic. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-zimmerman-case--a-touch-of-sanity/2013/07/18/35f30c00-efdd-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

Basementdweller, I think you've acted in good faith. Moreover, I think some IRS person would be pretty hard up to think pursuing any scoutmaster is worth even a minute of time over one of these situations. And I agree, perhaps BSA could turn some of its legal staff to finding an official opinion on this. Just keep in mind that those of us who have become accustomed to poor leadership out of Irving might, out of habit, ignore something that was actually useful as well.

Please, Papadaddy, tell us about the causes of and solutions to all that loss of life.

" It just falls apart when governments feel the necessity to set up inequalities to "make things right" or to allow one group, any group, including the government which has taken an oath to apply equality to all, to demand more "rights" than the next group." See, I can agree with this. It is wrong for, say, men to be able to vote, but not women. It is wrong for one ethnic group to be able to vote, but not other ethnic groups. I note that at one time in my region, the 'conservative' view was that these things were NOT wrong. But today, unless I'm reading things wrong, conservatives support the idea that NO preference be given to any ethnic group. And I'm in agreement with that as well. This is application of the principle that 'rights' of citizenship should be available to all citizens (unless of course they have been convicted of a crime of some sort). So...is there anyone who would argue that this is NOT a conservative principle?

Yeah, in this weather it is far superior to die pinned under a rock in a whitewater river or maybe washed over a waterfall or something. My favs involve powerboats, alcohol, and failure to use pfd's...or almost any combination of activities and that alcohol thing. Of course, there are always the 'any season' things like cigarettes, lol. Smokers are a dying breed.

Leno just cracked a joke about some kind of 'weight' restriction. Something to do with obesity.

Thanks KDD. That's a little on the brief side, though, for an explanation....maybe jblake47 knows "what you're driving at..." jblake47, was all that in support of your argument that the principle IS conservative .....or NOT conservative? I have no idea what you mean by 'holding water' either. Race is a condition, not a right. Sexuality, same thing. And even though the others are associated with rights, it isn't clear what the problem is with them - but it doesn't matter anyway for my inquiry. I'm asking about a principle that rights of citizenship should apply to all citizens not just some citizens. That's what I'm asking about, not specific single rights.

Number four: did you laugh at him when he told you about the FOS shortfall, or.....was there some other response? Please don't tell me you hopped to it and chummed up that money. Ours have lasted longer. The first was about as thoughtful as a used condom. He's the reason (I was CM at the time) that DEs were invited never to attend another pack event. I guess word got around about him so he was replaced with a really nice guy. I liked him and he really wanted to help. He just didn't. The next one was about as smart as a really intelligent bucket of nails. Complete zero. Of course, this means he was promoted up the line. The next guy was ex-military so he understood chain of command. Unfortunately he didn't understand calendars or deadlines. I gave up hope for a DE that was actually an asset to the unit.

Are you serious? Do you seriously not understand this? It is about a 'principle' and not a specific right. The 'principle' is that 'rights' of citizenship should go to ALL citizens, not just some of them. I am asking if anyone can explain why that principle is NOT conservative? Look, if you can't understand this, you're not going to be able to explain anything. Anyone else want to take a crack at it?

Are you saying that you disagree with that principle? The challenge was to explain why the principle of equal rights for all citizens is not conservative. It's about the principle, not specific rights.

Speculation on top of speculation. So GZ says, and so, evidently, those who make GZ into a victim want to believe.

Repeat, I challenge anyone to explain why the principle that all citizens should have the same basic rights is NOT conservative.

LOL, "Mendelsohn's Peas" must be a recently-discovered music manuscript by a classical composer, first name Felix? Edit: yuck, yuck, it's spelled Mendelssohn. Unless you're really thinking about Gregor Mendel, who did some obscure genetic experiments.....with peas.

Same response to Peregrinator, The instructions to the jury included instructions about SYG. The jurors who have come forward afterwards have disagreed with you. Look, there are some facts. 1) GZ ignored the police advice. 2) He left his vehicle and pursued Trayvon. 3) Trayvon was alarmed about a "creep" who was pursuing him late on a rainy night. If we apply SYG evenly, Trayvon was justified in 'standing his ground'. Moreover, he was unarmed and if he thought this creep meant him ill will he was, under SYG, allowed to use whatever force he thought necessary to protect himself. He was under no obligation to retreat. GZ, on the other hand, had no reason to fear for his life until he actually confronted Trayvon, perhaps emboldened by the knowledge of his concealed weapon (which Trayvon knew nothing about, hence the scream just before he was murdered). Yes, Trayvon made the mistake of exercising SYG against a creep who was packing. GZ became the aggressor when he left the car. He controlled everything thereafter. To think that Trayvon somehow 'deserved' what happened or was the guilty party in all this, is obscene.

I highly doubt that Zimmerman shot the Trayvon Martin because he was black. I think folks are forgetting a few things and not thinking analytically. One, as jblake47 and others have tried to point out - jury trials such as these do not have an objective to prove someone innocent. The judges direction to the jury was to determine if George Zimmerman acted in self-defense or in legalese - if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force and that a person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The jury was also instructed to judge Zimmerman by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used, that the danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. There was conflicting testimony - there was very different testimony by several witnesses stating who was the aggressor. So, for me - concluding that there was reasonable doubt was the correct verdict. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman acted properly. Also, I believe the jury was 100% female, as was the Circuit judge and no one is claiming gender issues? (It was not 100% white as some have claimed. Five where white and one Hispanic.) The fact that Trayvon Martin did not simply go home or that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car or not followed Martin are irrelevant to the case at hand. It did not matter how the confrontation came to be - if Zimmerman was profiling, if Martin was looking for a fight - it only mattered that when Zimmerman fired a bullet through Trayvon's heart, was the appearance of danger so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person believe that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force? I do pretty much agree that Zimmerman acted improperly, but not illegally. It would have been better for all concerned, if he had stayed in his vehicle. That said, it's easy to say that in hindsight, and not living in a neighborhood that has been burglarized several times. Renax127, The instructions to the jury included instructions about SYG. The jurors who have come forward afterwards have disagreed with you.

Sorry about the exclamation points, I needed 10 characters.

Egad!!!!!!

Cruelty? Savageness? Where did THAT come from? Look at the title of this thread. This is about gay rights. Besides who is blaming those two things on Christianity? What jblake47 claims is that the principles of Christianity are what made our country the great country that it is. I'm just disagreeing with that claim. I also happen to think that all citizens should have the same rights and for some reason, jblake47 seems to think that puts this country into some kind of 'death spiral' or something. Good grief! I challenge anyone to explain why the principle that all citizens should have the same basic rights is NOT conservative. Go ahead. Ross Perot here...I'm all ears.

I'm going to suggest something else in addition. And college students need to direct their efforts at themselves as well. I have noticed, over the last 20 years or so, what seems to be not only a tendency of students to feel freer to take shortcuts or cheat, but also for their peers to condone it (I guess the two things go hand-in-hand). Now, I'm not sure what students can do to address this other than to think hard about their own ethical judgment, but one thing they could do for everyone else is to take a serious look and see if there really is a problem or not. And if there is, does it result from greater technical ability (smart phones, etc.) or do new social activities influence the way they view morality (being able to vote multiple times for American Idol, for example, if you're willing to pay)? This is less 'substantial' than attacking obesity, and I think that is a great idea as well. But this is, I think, more intellectually-challenging, and if they can accomplish no more than to cause everyone to think more seriously about it, it will have been a positive contribution. IMHO

Thing is, that very correct uniqueness that you have identified is a strong argument against Christianity as the reason. Christianity is and has been dominant lots of places. It has, by your account, only been associated with ONE place like the USA. I repeat what my statistics friends like to say, rare events occur with a probability of 1. But they are still rare events, and hardly the basis for a trend or the kind of sweeping generalizations you're trying to make.

Are you saying Cortez was a missionary? Coronado? OK we all know that indigenous peoples did a WHOLE lot better after their lands were settled by those Christian people..yeah,.right! Like I mentioned before, if you look at the areas of THIS country that already resemble that 'third world' you seem not to admire, those are mostly areas in the Bible Belt and which local societies most closely match, it seems, YOUR values. And also, like I noted before, I can name third world countries that are far more heavily influenced by 'The Church' than the USA. You're claiming credit for Christianity that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, not even a little bit.

Those cities? Are you saying the French and Spanish DIDN'T own those territories for those cities?

Jblake47, man, you're charging off the deep end, fella. " any other third-world country"....sorry, I don't think we're already there! I go to the third world frequently and I can tell you that outside of some wretched places like the Deep South (where, incidentally, they most closely share YOUR values), most of the USA doesn't qualify. Don't forget: the Holy Roman Empire was also "based on the principles of Christianity". C'mon, the sky is not falling. Edit: Come to think of it, I can think of some third world places that are influenced far more by Christianity than the USA ever was.

I know the guy, or at least characters who were similar to what you described. The chewed end of that cigar is one of my definitions of 'obscenity'. Does he look like Clint?