Kahuna

Terry, I agree with you on Bob Gates, but I can't think of anybody less qualified to oversee reorganization of the military than an Obama administration full of Democrats, none of whom like the military. Many of the problems our military has today stem from the Clinton administration. Just guessing who his military advisors will be, judging by the generals who endorsed him, I wouldn't be optimistic. I've worked for some of them and they are pretty scary. I'm afraid we would end up with "lean" and that's about it.

I just checked the statistics for the 2008 and the 2004 elections. They appear to differ from what the media is telling us. Here they are: 2008: Barack Obama - 63,551,185 John McCain - 56,173,760 Total - 119,754,945 2004: George Bush - 62,040,610 John Kerry - 59,828,439 Total - 121,869,049 These totals came from independent internet sources you can Google and do not include the minority pary candidates. So my question is this: Obama only got a million more votes in 08 than W did in 04. McCain only got 3 million less than Kerry in 04. The total number of votes this year is actually 2 million less than in 04. So, where is this phenomenal number of new voters the media has been talking about? Who were in all those lines we saw winding around buildings for weeks? I'm not suggesting anything sinister here, like stolen votes or anything. But it's interesting how different it is from the media coverage of the election.

I'm in, except for no. 8. I like the current Anthem. Makes chills go up my spine when it's played and nobody sings anything right. However, I'm prepared to support that if you nominate me for president. Seriously, I love your platform, but I think we are stuck with the two parties we've got, as lousy as they both are. I'm a Libertarian, but never vote for them at the national level. Why? Because they never have a chance and they take votes away from a candidate who has a chance. In this case it would be the Republicans with whom I normally vote. Maybe you could get them to adopt your platform. They are pretty much looking for a message right now.

This is what political grace looks like: I guess you'll have to explain that one to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm entirely sympathetic to his point of view. It was a very touching speech, but he was for Obama and he is an African-American. Why wouldn't he be gracious?

BadenP, you sound like you need a couple of aspirin and a cold towel and maybe a break from these threads. I wonder if it was a good idea for Terry to start them.

Well said, Bob White. BadenP, as I said the other day, liberals always resort to name calling when they can't make a logical argument, which is most of the time. You should really change your screen name, you know. You are calling yourself after a really right-wing, gun-toting, empire builder. We'll see in the coming years what this man brings us.

Terry, I'm prepared to give the man a chance as I did with Carter and Clinton. Didn't work too well with those guys, but I'm an optimist. Having said that, the "most liberal ever" thing is something to watch. The Democrats (1992) have a history of taking these things as a mandate for the more loonie of their ideas. Remember what happened in those days? Republicans came back with a vengence. Clinton did serve two terms, but mostly with a Republican congress. I can't escape the fear that, having been elected, Obama will now revert to his more liberal roots and try to govern from the far left. I hope you are right and I am wrong. Nothing would please me more than to see our first non-white president succeed big time and I feel a strong empathy for black folks my age who endured sitting in the back of the bus and "white only" water fountains and waiting rooms. It must seem like a dream come true for them. I hope it is.

I heard on the radio yesterday that people were getting official looking emails telling folks that Obama voters should go on Wednesday. It's hard to believe anyone would be that gullible, but I do see that a lot of middle-aged folks went out to vote for the first time in this election. Apparently, the emails didn't work, judging by the election results.

Why shouldnt George W Bush or William J Clinton be able to be elected president as many times as they can be elected? Well, because the Constitution was amended by the people to prevent it. Somebody must have thought it was important.

wasn't it the Republicans who championed Presidential term limits as a result of FDR? I don't know, Pack, I'm not a Republican, but it sounds right. In any case how many of those Republicans are alive and holding office today? Both the Democratic and the Republican parties were far different way back then.

Stosh, that's hilarious. I can just picture that and hear the screams. BTW, I've been continuously involved in Scouting since age 8. Been SM, ASM, CC, IH, Skipper and other positions not involving boys for over 55 years. In fact, the best troop I ever saw was run by an SM and primary ASM who had no boys. I've been accused of many things, but being creepy has never been one of them. Maybe I'll get one of those black drover's coats . . .

Actually, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. There's voting and there's membership. The VP is the President of the Senate. The VP has a vote when there's a tie. So, that's, like, no influence?

You guys do not want to have term limits. And I will give you a couple of reasons. First, having term limits is undemocratic. If the people want to keep electing someone to an office that is their right. So, we should be voting for Bush for a third term, right?

None of us here would seriously mislead anyone about election day! In this case I would, if I could get away with it.

The reason all of those bums in DC are there is because we elect heroes back home. I would suggest that the reason all those bums are there is because they aren't term limited. We don't elect any heroes here. We elect the least worst bum we can find and send him/her back.

I don't see anything creepy about men without kids in the program being involved. And having kids in the program doesn't mean someone isn't a pedophile. The best judge of creepiness is the boys in the unit. I've never seen it fail that the leader who creeps out the kids has something wrong. May not be pedophilia, but something. I never trust anybody who isn't liked by kids and dogs. They always know a creep when they see one.

BadenP, What's not true is when you call me a gun-toting, ultra right-wing conservative. I'm a libertarian. I do own guns and hold a permit to carry a concealed weapon. However, I'm pro-choice, opposed to "don't ask don't tell" and I'm a Buddhist. I am strong for defense, but opposed to pork barrel spending. So I stand by my statement that liberals would rather call names than argue facts. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to my views. I don't mind debating, but I object to being called something I'm not. Yes, the Republicans have not done a good job over the past several years and they are getting thumped for it. But electing worse people won't help. Congress, led by Pelosi and Reid has a much lower approval rating than Bush. Like 12%. Couple that with a far left Democratic president and they will over reach, you can bet on it. BTW, if you think Obama is an intellectual, think again. He's a con man, an empty suit. He's a product of corrupt machine politics, an associate of crooks, and bereft of ethics, IMHO. If he is elected today, you will have a chance to see in the next four years just what I'm talking about(This message has been edited by kahuna)

Terry, I didn't miss the point. You missed my point. My point is that we would be better off without those liberal judges. Acttivist judges are not those who substitute their judgment for that of the Legislative branch, but for the Constitution. I want judges who can read the Constitution and follow it. For example, I am in favor of a woman's right to choose on abortion. Nevertheless, Rowe v. Wade was bad law. Can you read the Constition (have you ever read it?) and find where that "Right to Privacy" is? It was an activist court who wanted to find a way and they did. While I liked the result, it wasn't good reasoning and should be handled by the legislative. You mention McCain-Feingold, they didn't go far enough. It's a bad law and deprives people of their free speech rights. Wouldn't have stood if those justices you mention hadn't been there. Liberals are all about "balance" and "fairness." I'm about the strict meaning of the Constitution. It's written in very simple language and was meant be understood by common citizens.

Terry writes: The most likely Supreme Court retirees are Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. All liberal(ish) seats. How exactly will Obama's replacements swing the court so wildly liberal? Well, if you like their decisions that the 2nd Amendment doesn;t grant individual right to guns (although that was squeaked through in favor of the right) or that political entities can confiscate your property and build a shopping mall, I guess it's fine the way it is. I'd prefer a little less activism, thank you.

BadenP writes: We just survived eight years of an intellectually challenged president who has done nothing more than massively raise the National debt, got us involved in unnecessary conflicts, and appointed two of the worst supreme court justices in the history of the court. What are you gun toting, ultra right wing conservatives even thinking. Oh thats right you guys prefer others to do your thinking for you, just like your current leader does, lol. Obama will be a cake walk by comparison, it will be nice to see intellectualism return to DC after an eight year absence. That is totally uncalled for in response to what I wrote, but just like a left winger. When you can't argue the facts, you call names. Fine for a Scouter, buddy.

we have survived every other President and we will survive the next. Changing the American government is like turningan aircraft carrier. It happens slowly. Yes, but the next president will put probably two justices on the Supreme Court. He likes Ruth Ginsberg and thinks the Warren Court was not radical enough. In four years, he will start programs that cannot be stopped. No entitlement program ever is. We will survive him, but the country will be fundamentally changed.

And if you're voting for Obama, be sure to be there bright and early Wednesday morning! I was just going to say that!

Terry, You have really been taken in by the Obama hogwash. I'm afraid he will get elected, so you'll probably have a chance to see how wrong he is for America. The good news is that Democrats will only have two more years of power. With a Democratic president, they will go absolutely crazy with their looney programs and the people will throw them out next election and Obama the one after. Just a fearless forecast. Anyway, I already voted for McCain. Reminder: Terry and other Obama supporters don't forget to get down to the polls on Wednesday and cast your ballot. Voting is important.

Eamonn, it means good news, I think! You can never really tell about how things work out in the end. If you check the new organization chart, you see we are like the OA, Philmont, and Sea Base, kind of a separate entity. We do have a new director of Sea Scouting and a new National Commodore. Charlie Wurster, the new Commodore is a guy I've worked with before when he was in Honolulu. He's an old time Scouter and has a great background for this, plus some national (and certainly Coast Guard) clout. As to how this is going to play out vis a vis Venturing, I don't think anybody knows. I'm not sure if we are part of it or not. If not, it will mean a lot changes - such as Sea Scouts earning Venturing awards and vice-versa. I'm a Vice Commodore in my council and neither I or nor the Commodore have any idea about this. Looks like we will continue like before until told to do something else. I don't think it will make much difference either way. Sea Scouts was unique before and while it was part of Exploring. It has been different since it was part of Venturing. So, we'll still be different. I don't know about you, but I have not been to Powderhorn and don't normally attend Venturing functions for youth. I have been trained in the basics of Venturing, but that's about all I know about it. The Venture people know less about us. We'll see how it plays out.

From a military point of view: I would say that any headgear a Scout is allowed to wear with his uniform should remain on for saluting the flag. If it's not official in your unit, the Scout shouldn't be wearing it in the first place. Most units do have an official hat, I know ours always have, and that's what the boys should wear. If they are allowed to wear something else, then that is official from the unit point of view. If a Scout was wearing jeans with his uniform, should he take them off to salute the flag?