Brewmeister

You miss the point. It's not about using the past to make a claim about the present; it's about making sure the past is accurately reflected. Lincoln was not a Democrat. Neither was Reagan. Kennedy was not a Republican. And as you point out it was Democrats who stood in staunch opposition to civil rights legislation. It is simply wrong to say, "Well, yah, but those 'Dixicrats' were really Republicans in disguise." Facts are what they are. Regarding the present, see my points about conservative candidates being summarily dismissed as "tokens," or caricatured...and who's doing the dismissing. I see nobody has argued that because, of course, it is a fact. But of course it's ok to lampoon minorities who are conservative because, after all, they are not genuine. "Cornball brothers," to borrow a phrase. However, as I also admitted, the Democrats, aided by a complicit media and educational system, have widely succeeded in casting modern day conservatives as RacistSexistBigotedElitistHomophobes. It has been a brilliantly divisive and effective campaign.

Careful, volunteer, that looks a lot like hate speech to me. Can't let facts get in the way of the Big Lie. Just keep repeating the mantra "Conservatives are a bunch of racistsexistelitisthomophobes" and you'll fit right in.

Texas, the average age of an Eagle is 17.1, compared to 14.6 over 60 years ago. So Eagles are getting older not younger.

So it worked out. The majority of folks voting did't want Romney as president, and HE didn't want to be president. Well, if you don't want to become president, running as the Republican nominee is a great strategy to accomplish that goal!

Record food stamp rolls, record growth in "disability" rolls, growing entitlements, and a shrinking percentage of tax payers. Sounds to me like a country on the wrong side of the economic curve. But more compelling are the Rabbi's continued remarks in the comment section: "Since Republicans stand for traditional values, and the Democrats are the party of abortion, homosexuality and promiscuity and decadence is de riguer in American society the Democrats are ascendant and the Republicans are in decline. The Republicans are out of the moral mainstream as are Torah Jews by the way. That is why it is hard to stomach religious Jews voting for such a party; they must have to either modify their Torah values or divorce them from being a relevant factor in their lives. And, yes, empires have collapsed because of moral rot even quicker than because of economic ruin."

2012 minted the most eagles ever...nearly 58,000 of them. So were a bunch of boys motivated by the centennial patch? Discuss amongst yourselves....

Moose, speaking as a conservative, I believe in equal opportunity regardless of skin color. I don't speak for the Republican party, but I don't see them, oh, for instance, elevating a klansman to a position of power within their ranks...not like any party would do that, right?

First off, it's not "my" party. I'm not a republican. Nor a tea partier. The republican party is doomed because conservatism as a philosophy can no longer succeed in this country. The message of individual responsibility is simply no longer attractive. And without conservatism, the Republican party is simply Democrat-light, nibbling around the margins of policy while doling out its own brand of entitlement programs and corporate welfare. The other problem is messaging, which the democrats are experts at. They have successfully whitewashed history--how many people would know they were on the wrong side of the civil rights movement? At the same time, today they have made it impossible for minorities to be aligned with the Republican party but be "genuine." It is absolutely amazing to watch...criticism of Susan Rice for her actions is "racist," yet cartooning Condoleeza Rice as an Aunt Jemimah is cool. And which party has the only black Senator currently serving? But of course he is just a "token." It is a brilliant and effective strategy. So yes, I will agree with you that the Republican party is likely doomed for various reasons, among them being that democrats have claimed the mantel of supporting equal opportunity despite a party history that proves otherwise. We are looking at effectively one party rule for the foreseeable future.

It is always amazing to see the mental machinations people go through to deny the black and white--pardon the expression--evidence of history. Whatever helps you folks sleep at night, I guess.

"After all, it can't possibly be the fact that we have the most immoral and hedonistic society than about anyplace else in the world." See what happens when you address the motivation, rather than the method?

Sadly, she's not joking, and her argument is a common attempt to rewrite history. Let me summarize it for you. The way it works is that when democrats were racist in the past, they were really closet republicans. When republicans championed civil rights legislation that democrats opposed, those republicans were really the equivalent of democrats. After all, we all know that Ronald Reagan's positions would make him a progressive democrat today. So that means that all the racist sentiment today, which is defined as "when someone white says something critical about the actions taken by anyone of color," must be republican. Modern democrats of course cannot be racist, especially when they say and do things that are. Hope that helps.

Good grief, cellar-dweller!!! I think the lack of sunlight in the basement is affecting you. Knock it off already.

I never said to regulate them. I believe in free market regulation and if everyone were like me there would be no market for violent first person shooter games or movies like Saw or Hostel because I would not buy or see them. Having the information to make such a decision is important and why we should not poo-poo a study that draws a link from point a to point b. But sadly not everyone is like me.

Well, since this thread has completely derailed... Yeah, we are so racist in this country that we elected a black president. Twice. Charges of racism are used more and more by the race-obsessed simply to discredit positions and ideas they don't agree with and, quite often, their charges demonstrate the textbook definition of psychological projection...

I must agree with kudu..... Our patrol essentially decided "this is stupid" after the first round and went thru the motions. We had a good group. I wish I could have gone through the pre-21st century course. The only parts of the course where I really learned stuff I can use in Scouting happened during the outdoor weekend when we fended for ourselves as a patrol. The rest was death by PowerPoint.

Of course these type of things desensitize people to violence. The difference between the "first person shooter" games of today, and of course the movies, is the realistic and graphic violence that is depicted compared to the "old days." As we go further into the depravity of hollywood, we find a whole subset of movies appropriately called "torture porn." It is--to use a phrase being tossed around a lot these days--"common sense" that celebrating violence and making it seem normal and prevalent in society would have an affect.

Where you are wrong of course is that your argument presupposes that the GOVERNMENT must organize and control the "militia." That flies in the face of everything the founders feared about a government-organized military force, standing or otherwise. In contrast, a well-regulated (meaning, "properly functioning") militia made up of THE BODY OF CITIZENS is essential to the security of a free state. Law professor David Vandercoy of Valparaiso concludes this point better than I could: The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says. I can already hear the caterwauling from those who will say that this purpose is no longer relevant in a day when we have a standing army and where our puny pistols and rifles would be no match for a heavy artillery or air assault. Perhaps. (But would muskets be a match for cannons and calvary?) Anyhoo, if it is no longer relevant, the answer is to amend the constitution by the process outlined within it, not to claim it says something it does not and was never intended to.

My wife had about zero interest in guns for more than 20 years that I knew her. In the past I had suggested she learn to use a handgun I have "just in case" but she wasn't interested. So imagine my surprise when about 2 months ago she went into a sporting goods store and came out with an LCP and is now getting a concealed carry permit. I had not said a thing to prompt this decision--I was totally floored. Now, national statistics show that gun ownership has continued to decline...but anecdotally I have heard of a lot of people acquiring guns who had not had them before, and people who already have guns getting more. I believe it's just a statement on society, and a realization that a cell phone and 911 isn't sufficient if you are in imminent danger.

Something is wrong when the citizenry is "required" to arm itself for protection against other citizens. Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Who is the "old Brewman?"

Oh stop it with the hyperbole. If you can't see the difference between hazing and playing a one hour game....

Thanks to this thread I am now getting GEICO ads in my banners. Well done!

Given that the men (and women) in uniform can't be in all places at all times, a well-regulated (in the historical sense of the term) militia made up of armed citizens is a wise and timeless practice that does indeed protect the security of a free state and its inhabitants.

Requiring voters to be trained and licensed is a regulation I could definitely get behind. But I've hijacked your thread just to make a point....my apologies.

I always find it funny that the same group of people who want to read the second amendment in the most narrow and limiting way possible, or who argue that the founders in no way wrote the second amendment with today's society in mind, have no problem with finding other individual rights in the Constitution that are not written there...abortion comes to mind, for one. All you people trying to parse the second amendment are missing the fundamental point that rights belong to the people. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the government; it restricts what the government can do to curb individual rights. A "free state" is not just free against threats from outside its borders; it is one where its citizens are also free to pursue their God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness against threats posed by fellow man or other dangers. Some were against the creation of a bill of rights for this very reason--the fear that it would be interpreted narrowly to recognize only those rights written within it. Fortunately the court, at least thus far, has interpreted the second amendment in favor of individual liberty as it is intended, as it has done so for other constitutionally protected rights as well. "Shall not."