Callooh! Callay!1428010939

ACORN

Poncho liner is light and packs OK. It's slippery. The old-school field jacket liner was the best part of the old field jacket, which was otherwise not very useful. The field jacket liner and liner pants are essentially the same material as the poncho liner. They're a light quilted suit that will pack small and be useful not just for sleeping warm but as a wearable insulation layer. You can do better, but maybe not at the price.

It seems folks compliment our children's behavior relatively frequently. If they know we homeschool, they often attribute it to that. Maybe they remark because the children's behavior is remarkably good. But maybe it's just because homeschooling is different and if people know, it makes them more observant and more likely to remark on homeschooled children's behavior. Or maybe something like this happens to all parents, homeschooling or not. Other contributing factors to behavior are genes, diet, exercise, family influences, family life, outside activities, etc. To the extent that homeschool is a factor, the fact that a family homeschools may not be as much a factor as how they homeschool - and even that may have little to do with the behaviors noted in the OP. Homeschoolers' reasons for homeschooling, pedagogical strategies, and family lives vary. Beware The Homeschoolers! (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"Warning to everyone: This is a generational issue. In 20 years people will look back on the fear of homosexuals and the viewing of them as immoral and judge harshly." Judge harshly? You mean there will still be judgmental people around in 20 years? Interesting. And why is this a warning? Will people whose beliefs are out of step with the masses be in some kind of danger? And... "fear?"

Interesting observation here: "Heres snapshot of the race heading into the first presidential debate: Amid anti-American turmoil in the Middle East, Gallup finds the president leading his GOP challenger 45 to 42 percent. Despite continuing bad economic news, Gallup also reports that 48 percent of American say they have confidence in the presidents ability to deal with the economy up five points since June while confidence in his opponents economic stewardship has dropped nine points in the same period. Good news for the Democratic incumbent? Think again. Those were the findings of the Gallup poll on Oct. 28, 1980 one week before Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in a landslide. A late October CBS News/New York Times poll gave Carter a similar lead over Reagan, 42-39 percent." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/like-reagan-romney-can-still-win/2012/10/01/01776f94-0bcb-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html

BSA24, If ignorance makes liberals laugh, however do they stop? Or is it only the ignorance of others that is humorous? http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/03/conservatives-dont-care-about-science-ne Indeed, it does require an especially studious kind of ignorance to argue against evolution. However, reconciling oneself to this mundane reality doesn't necessarily impart any wisdom about the whys and hows of being... or of being among other beings. One suspects that one's anti-evolution fellow conservatives resist accepting any knowledge that calls into question any of the foundational myths of their religious beliefs because these are closely connected to their metaphysical beliefs which tend either toward idealist monism or dualism.... the fear being that undermining these foundations leads to materialistic monism, an ontological position they don't see as compatible with free will or theism. Most of them wouldn't explain it quite this way though.

The OP doesn't make clear... were they ranting or were they being cordial? Were their political remarks addressed primarily to the adult leader present or to the boys? Were they up on a soapbox addressing all and sundry like politicians... or was this more like a friendly chat in which they let slip some views that tolerance can't tolerate? There's no mention of having to shoo them away and apparently money was accepted from them, so they couldn't have been too dangerous. "immediately thought of the hate spewed on this forum about this issue...." Don't worry about the hate spewed... it's like water off a duck. Those who support BSA's policy or don't care about the issue enough to oppose the policy, are used to having tolerant and inclusive folk spew hate at them. What seems a bit underhanded though, is how the OP tries to make the couple that praised BSA's policy sound ignorant by quoting them as using the possessive pronoun where they ought to have used the conjunction of the second person plural pronoun and the second person plural conjugation of the verb "to be." Surely, they said "...you're here," vice "...your here."

I vote present. But in this proposed plebiscite that discriminates to exclude LDS Scouters, how is LDS Scouter defined? Are you proposing we discriminate against any Scouter who is a member of the LDS church? Or are you proposing to discriminate against any Scouter whose troop's chartered org. is an LDS ward, even if the Scouter himself is not a member of the LDS church? Or will you only discriminate against Scouters who are both church members and whose troops' chartered orgs are LDS? (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

That's the spirit! Some attempts at insult ought be taken as accolades. And SP, well said.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Packsaddle, No. Thank you... for confirming that some who argue these matters are literate. "Neocon" has lost specific definition in the public imagination. One guesses your usage of the term is sound commentary on foreign policy activism to reform other nations. But the term gets bandied about much the way the term "fascist" is deployed by leftists, who might look it up after seeing it pointed out here that their usage reveals that they have only the vaguest idea what it used to mean before leftists started using it because they thought they'd sound more erudite and credible if they said "fascist" instead of "poo-poo-head." "Tea Party" may be headed in the same direction. A vague pejorative term for folks who don't agree with me. There is much ideological diversity among Republicans and Conservatives. Where else can diversity thrive? Certainly not in the leftist ideological monoculture of today's Democrat Party. Good call on the utility over symbolism vote... Romney vice Johnson. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Maybe these disciples of Ehrlich are unfamiliar with Simon - maybe Ehrlich too. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa364.pdf (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

He wrapped himself in quotations - as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors. Rudyard Kipling

Excellent observation. You're making progress.

Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

"To all Republicans in this thread.. Let me tell you that I am ashamed you consider yourself representives for scouting.." Maybe many of the Republicans can forgive your ashamedness. Adults are known to forgive adolescents for once in a while being embarrassed by association with them. Mirror imaging can cause error in how we perceive others' intentions as we assume their thinking somehow mirrors ours. Conservatives tend to care less about whether or not their political positions make them look like they are compassionate and kind and more about whether or not their political positions will lead to a free and just society. Leftists on the other hand, want very much to be seen and to see themselves as compassionate and kind champions of the downtrodden. They assume that the ostensibly good intentions behind their policies will lead to good results. They place a high premium on maintaining a heroic public and self image. That's why Conservatives so often think lefties are really collectivist totalitarian fanatics... because they don't understand that the naive poses of good intentions are the central facet of many lefties' focus. They think that lefties are actually aiming for the results that can be reasonably expected from left policies. And thereby conclude that lefties really want the totalitarian collectivist society their platform will lead to, when in fact, plenty of lefties just want to see themselves as wonderfully compassionate and caring, even if more in the telescopic Mrs. Jellyby manner. And it's why lefties so often impute evil and malevolent intent to anyone who argues against their positions. They see conservative are less inclined to preen their virtuous concern for the downtrodden and conclude from that that Conservatives don't care, since fore them showing "care," appearing virtuous, and proclaiming ones desire for all good things is of paramount importance. For many lefties, any evidence that a policy based in a desire for something good might not lead to good, must be evil and false.

What sport to see Partisans who live in glass houses throwing... ACORNs

"Ya know in the 1880's most of these kids would have already been married and havin kids by 15-16..... " That's not true. However just 20 years earlier they could have legally owned slaves. Many pro-lifers see parallels between the 1857 case of Dredd Scott v. Sandford and the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade - arguing that both decisions essentially denied the personhood of a category of human beings. Pro-abortionists argue that it's fallacious to compare fully formed human slaves with fetuses. It's a morally perilous question... at what point exactly is a human being entitled to protection under the law? Today mothers decide, just as slave owners decided back in those days. If the mother kills the developing life the day after conception, it's hard to see that as a human being.... but 3 months later? 6 months later? Some survive abortion... should they be entitled to constitutional protection? (BHO voted no BTW) This woman gave birth... in the same hospital in which she survived an attempt on her life when she herself survived after her mother aborted her at 6 months: (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

"Whatever, the real issue is how do we make it palatable to our own scouts who we are trying to have actually "earn" ranks and so on? Talk about personal pride? Talk about how we should listen to conscience? Any thoughts?" Sounds like you've got a proper handle on this... as you say... actually earn ranks and take satisfaction in what one can do and has done rather than in a patch that one can buy ... anyone can put on a hat and boots... that doesn't make him a cowboy.

This story is incredible. Unless other sides of it were completely at odds with the allegations, or unless there were some astonishingly mitigating circumstances, one would be inclined to refuse to cooperate with this man's enterprise and to tell him why. The opening statement is " We have an 11 year old, home schooled.." What is the significance of homeshooling to this story that it rates prominent mention among the handful of handful of facts we learn? Should we be on the lookout for cheating among homeschoolers?

"Yah, and that's da problem, eh? Modern conservatives no longer seem to care about honor, and patriotism before party." Painting on another layer of the same fallacious reasoning doesn't make the original argument any more logical.

->"If your neighbors are all friends, then there's no reason to spend thousands of dollars on a fence." It's not friendly neighbors we seek to keep out - it's ineligible voters, friendly or otherwise. An ineligible voter shouldn't be voting, no matter which party is in power. Conservative concern for meeting your "real conservative" criteria matches the Scotsman's concern over the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Heed OldGreyEagle question above... you don't want to inadvertently look like you're ambushing him with an opportunity to lie about or understate that which you are trying to help him confront. (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Snark? Oh yes, there it is a few posts above... upon encountering copious logorrheic excerpts from a compendium of lefty tropes, canards, and fantasies, the forum's Eagle732, appropriately played the part of the Bellman... "Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried, As he landed his crew with care; Supporting each man on the top of the tide By a finger entwined in his hair." http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/the-hunting-of-the-snark/index.html "cost of obtaining documentation" - like the cost of obtaining documentation to receive govt assistance? Is that next? - no documentation required to be on the dole? "there is no voter proof of voter fraud" - so we leave valuables unlocked if we haven't proved that anyone's interested in stealing them? (This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

One would be hard pressed to argue against this heroic influence your post imputes to Reagan... sowing seeds and all. But we should remember that plenty of folks have been sowing plenty of seeds and continue to do so. Not everything that happens in the world is the result of US steps and/or missteps.

"consisted of direct quotes from either Dick Cheney or George H.W. Bush. I'm merely reporting what they said." It's the Carter doctrine, de rigueur since 1980. You admiration of Bush and Cheney may have some firm foundations, but it is the Carter Doctrine they're espousing in those quotes.