firstpusk

I don't travel in the rarified circles that BobWhite does, but I know several volunteers that have served on national committees. The ones that I know are quite approachable and reasonable individuals. If you have concerns about specific issues, find out who is serving and talk with them.

I think that the Scoutmaster here let everyone down. The SM should be discussing the law and oath with the scout at each and every SM conference. Any Eagle candidate should have a thorough understanding of these principals by the time they are going to an Eagle Board. The very first SM should cover the joining requirements. The new scout should understand and agree to live by the oath, law, motto, slogan and the outdoor code. I have had several Eagles whose families were not church going. The religious reference needs to be discussed with any candidate. Here again, the SM and the Ad

Rooster, If you choose to be obtuse, that is your prerogative. The choice of analogy was particularly offensive and you would know it if you honestly reflected on it for even a moment. I have noted other such "arguments" from you in the past on a number of different issues. When called on it you claim you have been misread. Soon after that you will question the intelligence, character or honesty of the person. You did not disappoint me this time either you questioned my integrity and asked for an honest debate. That is also your prerogative. However, if the intent of your post

Bob, my apologies. I was quoting Rooster's response to you. I know I should use the format capabilities. That would have made it clearer.

"Bob, My lack of respect for certain religions does not compel me to badger those who posses those beliefs. Even if I were solicited to share my opinion, I would not be inclined to insult or degrade any individual. Instead, I would clearly explain why I disapprove of such a belief. You seem to be making the assumption that if I disrespect a religion, I must also show contempt for its followers. This is simply not so. Why would I hound or insult someone if I thought they were deceived? If anything, I would try to convince such a person to examine the evidence for his or her belief. At lea

I think you missed the "WHEELER" era. His input drove a number of folks to distraction. OGE's comments and the thread itself were for this person's benefit. The use of the word "drivel" was meant to be ironic.

Um, yeah...Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson were definitely not in his league.

After Ed mentioned it, I checked mine and it was okay. I tried to see if it would update. It did. But when I went back to check it - the profile was gone. I guess the solution is leave it alone if you have one that is more or less okay.

Not yet, but I'm pretty sure going blank has something to do with age... ;^)

Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

Interesting article. Clearly GW Bush is a legend in his own time... ;^)

If only Arnold Ziffle could talk. ;^)

acco40, thank you for posting no descriptors with savant ;^)

zipmedic, Bob is correct. We replaced both the troop and pack committee chairs in the last two years. Because I was volunteer resource chair for the district and member of the training staff, my input was sought. As an SA, I had no right to expect such input and felt honored that I would be consulted. The final decision was the Charter Institutional Head. He or she will be the one to sign off on the volunteer application. These Eagle Scouts needed signoffs from the project recipient institution representative, SM, CC or other Committee Member and the District just to start the proj

Amen, BOB, amen. I attend many of the Committee meetings for the troop. As an SA, I report on specific aspects of the program the SM has asked me to handle and have made SM the report in his absence. The Committee Chair asks for the status of the troop from the SPL the SM and Committee Members with assignments. The Committee may discuss an issue and come to consensus. As I recall, I have never seen a vote. Only more assignments from the Chair.

"Coffee cup!! Coffee cup!! With a belt clip!!" Amen, Brother!

FOG, that is an interesting comment. I don't doubt it is true, either. Perhaps it was karma that a small minded, vindictive opponent wrapped himself in the stars and bars, visited Bob Jones University and called the senator from Arizona a hypocrite. Bush must have really burned his butt.

What about the 1996 bombing of the World Trade Center? They just didn't get it done the first time. If anyone out there thinks that the U.S can stop the terrorist if they really want to hit us, they are deluded. We live in a great free country, but it is that freedom that they can use against us if they want to. It is how we respond when they do that will deter them from future actions. The first WTC bombing occurred on February 26, 1993 just a little more than a month after the Clinton administration took office. He sent anti-terrorism legislation to Congress and it passed that year. T

FrankJ, I generally consider a correction by definition must be correct. Your statement was not a correction. It was a half-truth. Only the first part was true. I granted you the true part, that a customs agent did indeed note the nervous would-be bomber and made the arrest. I also pointed out the false part, that the Clinton administration had nothing to do with foiling the bombing. That seems to be where your problem understanding me comes about. You won't accept that there was intelligence indicating possible terrorist infiltration from Canada. You won't admit the feds had

Pack, with a bit of reflection, I have to agree with your assessment of Nixon. He was a man of tremendous intellect and prodigious paranoia. He hid a whole illeagal war - now that's a whopper. The mention of GWHB was interesting. The old man had an understanding of the consequences of the actions the son has taken. The fact that it was unnecessary is the ultimate irony. Bob, I am sure that Osama bin Laden was just about to give up until he read my posts criticizing Bush. Back in the cave for him. Those perfectly concealed WMD programs, plans and stockpiles were about to be re

Read his statements over time. Look at what he said to the UN, to Congress and to the American people. Then compare it the information we now know he was given. Sorry BW, our President is a liar of the first order. He makes Nixon and Clinton look like understudies. Nixon lied to keep power. Clinton lied to hide the truth about his sex life. This man lied to send America to war - a war the nation did not need to fight. It is going to be pretty hard to top this man's record of dishonesty.

The only thing that Rooster had correct in his last post was, "In the end, truth will prevail." I don't need to invent ways to demean the President. He does very well on his own, thank you very much. A citizen has a duty to be informed. The information is there for anyone who will honestly consider it. The record shows the dishonest way this President and his administration has lied to the our allies, the UN, the Congress of the United States and most importantly the citizens. I guess that stacks up to good moral character in your book. Or does it only count as a lie if it is told by

"Bush is TRUSTWORTHY !! Our enemies know it and you know it! Even if you don't like where it leads us." Capital letters and exclamation points won't make it so. Bush is the most dishonest man we have had as President. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and he knew it. Iraq had no significant WMD stockpiles and he knew it. Iraq had no ongoing programs to develop WMD and he knew it. How did he know it? We had inspectors searching the country going right to were his "intelligence sources" told them where to go and they found nothing. Since we have been there, we have found nothing to ch

"This is incredibly amusing, if not outright hypocritical, because evolution does not have a factual basis. In truth, many of the scientific communitys best and brightest concede that evolution does not even qualify as a theory. In the end, its merely a worldview a religion, if you will that permits its followers to embrace whatever feels good." Evolution has a factual basis. The support for the theory becomes more solid with each passing year. I don't know where you get the idea that the "best and brightest" disagree with evolution, but you could not be more wrong. Evolution is

It really doesn't matter where you got it from. It has the same callous disregard for truth as Limbaugh. It expresses the same willingness to abuse one small fact to support a malicious slander. I hold what you say in low regard. The statements you made are the same half-truths made by Limbaugh. As the millennium approached, there were numerous warnings issued to the public through the media. Those followed an extensive intelligence effort by the US and its allies. About the President. I said anyone would be better and I mean it. Any of the men or women that stepped forward t