OldGreyEagle

I kinda like the "Local Option" that has been discussed at times. Since the Chartering Organization is charged with choosing the adult leadership of the unit, they would be, well charged with, well, choosing the adult leadership of the unit. Whoever they select as adult leaders are the unit's adult leaders. Be they gay or atheist or both. Also, the Chartering Organizaton also takes on all responsibility and liability concering the conduct of their leaders behavior. If a gay scoutmaster assaults a youth, then it is the Chartering Organization that holds the liability, not the BSA. In the past, I know there have been discussions that such an idea would not work because there are organizations that Charter units that do not want "gay" or atheist participation. Well, I am not sure how at combined event, such as Camporees anyone would know who was who. Youth Protecton rules are as always in effect as well as adult behavior. It's a thought.

The way I figure it, 3 months from January 14th is April 14th or any date after. Dates prior to April 14th are not 3 months from January 14th. Then again thats what I think and I can't tell you how many times people don't think the same way I do

Its been pretty much established that private organizations can legally set membership standards, I don't think that is in question here. The question is, how does a private organization that has several members who do not beleive in the memebership standards handle the situation? That the BSA can exclide Atheists or gays has been established, but is this a policy that is supported by its rank and file? That would seem to be the question

Hey, although I did a magificient turn as Judge Omar Gaffney as a senior in High School (I got to smoke a cigar, it was fine until I accidentally inhaled on stage), I never have nor do I now proclaim myself as a Thespian, master or otherwise

Hey, what if we limit participation in this thread to only those who assert they are willing to change their opinion on this topic based on the other sides argument? Anyone? Anyone? OK, back to everyone participates, "Lay on, Macduff, And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'"

Beavah is correct in his statements on the Catholic Church, especially the very early church. The behavior of the early Christians (thery were all one church, no reformation as yet) truly lived a Socialistic Communistic life style. All would pool their wealth and each woudl get what they needed. There was a slight difference, from what I can tell. Those who received most, put out all their efforts to become a supplier, to become one of those who could be counted on to have a surplus to add to the community. Children who grew up as the dependents of the society yearned for the day that they would become contributing members of the church, to help others as they had been helped. Perhaps it is with a jaundiced view of the world I hold, but I do not see the same general spirit now. It is what can I get and get and get, not now that you helped me, let me help someone else. It was the model of the latter that we need to emulate, if this is the path we take

gern, not to get too far off on a tangent, like that never happens, but this talk of international travel raises a question. So, one could postulate that a person doesn't truly become educated until one travels internatinally And if we make this supposition, then we are implying that only the wealthy are capable of being truly educated as they are the ones with the resources to travel internationally. And we are telling young people not to save money in they youth but to spend it in on the International Arena Now, I am not saying I beleive the above, but it is a counter argument. How do you answer that thinking International Travel is a requirement to be considered truly educated is elitist, classist and overall not nice?

SO, does this mean we are back to the nature of Homosexuality and whether or not a person can be born Gay? Gern, may I add a corrollory to Gern's law: The longer a thread runs in the Issues & Politics section of Scouter.Com, the probability that the question of Homosexuality being a choice or inate being discussed approaches 1 (one)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

Did you ever read the Book, "The Mouse that Roared"?

Oh, that was the Graduate Student reponse the Undergrad version is more like When like, you like, use labels, it like, treats people other than human, like

So, Pack, are you saying that using labels to categorize people is fraught with peril as it objectifies the person while not recognizing their individuality?

Now, THAT"s entertainment!

I used to think that the funniest radio show on the air was the The Phil Hendrie Show, it was hilarious, him talking to his guests and then people calling in. I lost track of his show and then I heard what I thought was a knock off of the Hendrie format, the Michael Savage Show. I initially thought Savage was a darker version of Hendrie, boy was I wrong

Hey all, I will be at the Camp Resolute Camp School in Bolton, MA on the 3,4,5, of April. Anybody else going to be there? Wanna lead a song or something together?

I think I understand Pack, I know that NJCubDad or something like that always said all posts, no matter what was written in them, should reamin as testament to the person who did the post. I tend to agree with the overall philosophy but still, there are some things I have no problems deleting and other things that I want to but dont touch because I am just not sure. So, I try to be light, although there are those who may disagree, what can I say to change their opinion? Not much. I do have to say that when a poster said that the democratic party was the Nazi's of the new century, I closed the thread invoking Godwin's law. Which I realize is a mis understanding of Godwins Law but I wonder how many Conservative Forums would close off a thread just because the Nazis and the Democrats were compared to each other as equals?

So how did Bush convince Albright and Clinton, while he was president that Iraq was a threat?

Merlyn, that doesnt explain why the UN thought it necessary to have weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq. If there wasn't indications of anything to find, why did the UN think they were necessary in the first place? Maybe there wasn't any WMD, but why did Albright say there were in 1998? Why did Clinton think so as well when he was president? Why did the UN pass all those resolutions?

I agree BadenP, I enjoin Brent, Gern, and Kahuna to review your style and rhetoric and to be sure to model your posts when responding to people who they disagree with. Are you sure about lumping Gern and Brent together?

Why did Saddam throw out the UN Weapons Inspectors if he didnt want the world to think he had something to hide? Why would be not allow the UN weapons inspectors to inspect where they wanted? Why didn't Saddam honor any of the 15+ UN resolutions asking/demanding they he comply with the armistice that ended the first Gulf War? Or else? What was the or else the UN had in mind? Why did the UN want to have weapons inspections in the first place? I dont think Saddam thought that any western country had the nerve to make him face up to his committments, and by the French and Germans response to our actions, he was pretty much on target.

So when Albright and then President Clinton asserted Saddam had WMD, they were lead astray by the Intelligience that even then, in 1998 was being manipulated by the Bush Administration, which didnt come into office until January 2001.

gern, since we are off the topic anyway, are you suggesting that we stick on topic the entire time and not allow drift thread much like Forrest Gumps feather that moves randomly? Doing that would certainly raise the horrid spectre of censorship and the threat of lack of free speech, again

I have to tell you all, I had no idea this was a Conserative Forum. It wasn't all that long ago I exchanged PM's with a Forum member who told me my liberal views were what was going to spell the doom of western civilization. Then in two weeks I got a PM that I was so Conservative that it should embarrass me. So, I figure I am about right. If you disagree with someone, disagree with them, you explain why you disagree with them. Its too easy to say You Conservatives/Liberals are all nuts, its harder to argue a specific point without bringing in the invectives

I do beleive Bush was naive, naive enough to beleive Albright, Pelosi, Reid, Edwards, then President Clinton and the host of others. If Saddam snookered Bush, #43 has plenty of company. So, lets say Bush never invades Iraq, and cirla 2006 a sarin gas attack in the New York subway traced to Iraq kills a few thousand. All those people quoted in the clip would be screaming we knew he had them and the idiot Bush didnt do anything. Well, he did something.

Hal, you are getting cloe to having me invoke Godwin's law or at least the part where the conversation is over when you call someone Hitler, A nazi, Gestapo, etc

Bush was the victim of faulty information, he beleived what others said...