packsaddle Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Poor Scalia. He singled out one type, presumably the rest are hunky dory in his mind...sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it...? Well, maybe not. Seattle, I guess you would have been a better choice for the rubber chicken (or whatever they served for lunch). For me, it would have depended on the dessert. If they had served ice cream I could have ignored just about everything around me short of nuclear attack (and then I'd try to gulp it down in the final milliseconds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 He was describing a particular kind of human behavior in polite terms. Just what I'd expect from a Supreme Court Justice. Well, having been there, I can tell you I don't think it was intended to be polite. It was intended to make a political point. I shouldn't give the impression that this subject was the focal point of the speech. The focal point was his ideas on interpreting legal texts (which consists mainly of not interpreting them, or so he claims), which by remarkable coincidence is the subject of one of his books, which was being sold by friendly folks at the back table for only $40 a shot. One of his other major points was that one of the big problems in this country is the 17th Amendment, which he thinks should be repealed. (As Casey Stengel used to say, you could look it up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Poor Scalia. He singled out one type, presumably the rest are hunky dory in his mind...sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it...? Well, maybe not. Seattle, I guess you would have been a better choice for the rubber chicken (or whatever they served for lunch). For me, it would have depended on the dessert. If they had served ice cream I could have ignored just about everything around me short of nuclear attack (and then I'd try to gulp it down in the final milliseconds). The meal itself was not particularly memorable. I don't want to give the impression that listening to Justice Scalia was a bad way to spend 30 minutes of my life. He is an intelligent man, and I like listening to intelligent people speak. I even enjoy listening, in moderate doses at least, to political views that I disagree with, and this was a mostly political speech that I mostly disagreed with. He is, well, also a Supreme Court justice, and the opportunities to attend a speech by one of those don't come along every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZMike Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 If people want to put their sexual activity front and center as a significant marker of their identity, why should it be considered distasteful or rude to describe it? Even over rubber chicken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuctTape Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 If people want to put their sexual activity front and center as a significant marker of their identity, why should it be considered distasteful or rude to describe it? Even over rubber chicken? What are those scout moms thinking showing up to a blue and gold dinner with their wives. Making a spectacle of themselves by flaunting their sexual activity in front of everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 If people want to put their sexual activity front and center as a significant marker of their identity, why should it be considered distasteful or rude to describe it? Even over rubber chicken? Scalia? Wow, I had no idea..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinator Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Repealing the 17th Amendment is an excellent idea. Though I admit that I am not a huge fan of Scalia myself as he's a legal positivist. Edited May 28, 2015 by Peregrinator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 This state will never ratify it. It was founded on the plantation/Lords Proprietor system of government and that spirit is alive through and through the state even today.The structure of this government was set in place during the times of slavery and then reinforced after reconstruction in a so-far-successful attempt to keep the white 'elite' in power. And it has been very successful in doing so. I like to think of it as "visiting the iniquities" of one generation upon subsequent generations long after. I thought about these parallels the other day as I viewed the 'Old Market' where slaves were traded on this island and which was the site of unimaginable sorrow, misery, and despair. Today there are descendents of slaves with little souvenir stands selling baskets and hot sauce and other items as souvenirs to the sweaty fat white people who occasionally visit. There is only one such place that I know of in the United States that today is an almost perfect parallel: Charleston, SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinator Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Oh, of course it would never be ratified. Once people have a taste of the crack cocaine of democracy they never want to give it up. Nowadays elites rule by limiting the range of acceptable choices for which the common folk can vote. Edited May 28, 2015 by Peregrinator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) What more mandatory training? Edited May 28, 2015 by RememberSchiff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenD500 Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 What more mandatory training? MandatoryLeader.JPG Training on how to "out" your leader? Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamcp Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Again, I ask, why join a group which has a policy you don't agree with? Can't you just make your own group? It's this mentality of confrontation and tearing down others which I think some people enjoy. Can't get in to the club, tear it down. Be careful, when the pendulum Swings back you may not like it! I think "separate but equal" has been discredited long ago enough that we can fairly say that prevailing wisdom will not support it. And I see no tearing down of the BSA in any of these changes in membership rules. If either of my sons were gay, I would imagine they would want to be with their friends. Gay people do socialize with straight people. So they would want to be in the BSA to participate in scouting experiences with their friends in the community, which would also afford the scouting experience with the most history, breadth, depth, and support. They would want the best. And if they spent their lives dedicated to Scouting as youth, which they seem to already be doing, I would not be surprised if they would want to be adult leaders. Perhaps because they would want the same for their own sons. Because gay men have children, too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Adamcp, welcome to the forums. Please be advised, Issues and Politics sometimes can be rough around the edges. The other forums, on the other hand, offer help and support for a wide variety of scouting topics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosetracker Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 Yes, welcome Adamcp.. Didn't notice this was your first post to the forum.. So ditto and what Packsaddle said... But, perhaps you have been a lurker for a while so know your way around, seeing that the moderators have changed things so you have to work harder to search this area out. Seeing that your first comment is in this area, it sort of points to this.. Or perhaps your interests lie in I&P, and you found this thread by surfing the web for this specific topic.. Which if you have posted or read comments from other political arenas around the web, well then we are quite rough for scouting but mild compared to other political discussion boards.. We try to argue (strongly at times) the comments and the ideas and we don't go into personal attacks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angler Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 I think "separate but equal" has been discredited long ago enough that we can fairly say that prevailing wisdom will not support it. Separate but equal was properly struck down as a policy of government in the United States. That decision has no relevance to the proposal within scouting to repeal the ban against homosexual adult leaders. Insinuating that those whose values you reject are racists is an intellectually dishonest argument. Do you seriously contend that organizations cannot maintain membership standards which exclude some people? That is the implication of your statement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now