Rooster7

Hunt, I dont buy your line of reasoning. Regardless, I submit that your burning desire to treat all POWs as humanly as possible would diminish greatly - if you had absolute knowledge that a specific individual was willfully withholding information that could prevent the torture and/or murder of someone close to you. Perhaps your way is more noble, but personally - Im not so sure.

We have lost the moral high ground, thats for sureTorture is repugnant to (most) Americans and we should let the world know it. Not claiming to have all the answers here, but your response begs some questions. So in regard to losing the moral high ground Am I to presume, the actions of a few rogue soldiers (i.e. prison guards humiliating POWs) taints the morality of all Americans? Or, are you surmising, because our government refuses to totally disassociate itself from any form of torture, the mere specter of its realization causes all Americans and/or our government to be discredited? Lastly, while I am personally repulsed by the idea of torture what would you prescribe for each of these scenarios? Its a given that a particular individual holds certain knowledge of controllable events, which if let unchallenged, will lead to the deaths of - Dozens of American and allied soldiers? - Hundreds of civilians? - Thousands of Americans? What order of magnitude does a preventable tragedy need to sustain, for it to become a crossable threshold? When does your desire to prevent the killing of innocent lives become so strong that you abandon your indignation for torture?

Brent - you're spitting into the wind. As I previously noted, the political left and their supporters are masters of the straw man argument. Misrepresenting the facts is what they do. Never mind that British intelligence stands behind their report to this day. And lets not forget that Saddam Hussein was a monster. 60 years after Hitler, people still blame the U.S. for not getting involved sooner. Had we not invaded Iraq, their grandchildren would have made the same claims about this war. Bush would have been labeled as insensitive to the plight of Iraqi Arabs. No doubt, there would have been undertones of racism as the talking heads on broadcast TV discussed why the U.S. waited so long. But since we did the right thing, now they want to label Bush as a trigger happy liar. As for Clinton, he did what he did. Theres no denying what occurred in the Oval office and with whom. Here, the political left wants to play stupid. They roll their eyes and mindlessly recite how the Presidents sexual behavior has nothing to do with his ability to lead. They fail (or refuse) to recognize the seriousness of his moral lapse. If a President fails to be faithful to his wife breaking his oath to the most important person in his life, then what assurances do we have that he will be faithful to the faceless multitudes that he supposedly represents in political office? Never mind that he lied about the affair time and time again, and/or that he tried to redefine words like is and sex. Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office. He not only betrayed his wife, but he disgraced the office and discredited himself, making it impossible for anyone to trust him.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Prairie_Scouter, And Rooster, like you, I'm tired of stating the obvious. If you guys want to think that conservatives all walk around in white suits with a heavenly glow about them, you go right ahead. Characterizing my position as being one that purports all conservatives as angels is a straw man argument. Its a false representation of my views which offers opponents of my actual views, an easy target to knock down. Allow me to do it for you Not all conservatives are angels. Now that we have that out of the way, lets return to the real argument. As a group, those empowered on the political left exploit nearly every newsworthy circumstance to distort and/or defame those on the political right. Furthermore, they will embrace almost anyone who aligns themselves against those on the political right. Ironically, the tactic that you just used against me (straw man argument) to misrepresent my viewpoint, is commonly employed by the political left to distort the truth. Its quite common. Whats truly sad, many in TV broadcasting (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.) and the print media (NY Times, Washington Post, LA times, etc.) take these distortions and run with them as if they were fact. Frankly, I don't see a lot to be gained by counting how many wackos there are on either side of the aisle. There's enough on both sides to make the matter kind of moot, don't you think? No I dont agreebecause when one tallies the whacko-ideologues from each side, and how they are treated by the respective political parties that they claim to represent (or at least sympathize with), it becomes increasingly obvious that the politically empowered left (i.e. the Democratic Party leaders and their elected representatives in government) has stepped off the deep end. This is the crux of my argument. A democratic president will invite an Al Sharpton to the Whitehouse to hear his views. No Republican president will ever invite the likes of a David Duke to the Whitehouse. It just doesnt happen. The reason for all of this is very simple. One must conclude that either the leaders of the Democratic Party are within half an inch of being the extreme left themselves, or they think that they can exploit these buffoons to gain the votes of their supporters without any consequence. Unfortunately, many Democrats apparently fail to see this, or dont care, or God forbid agree with the likes of Al Sharpton. Trevorum, I get so weary of shrill partisan bickering. The problem I think is that the two sides ('two' sides being itself an artificial contruct) have very different world views and, as a result, tend to argue past each other. I agree. Each party represents worldviews that are polar opposites. I believe, much of this, has to do with our views on humanityour natural tendencies. But ultimately, I think it has more to do with our perception of God and how we should view our relationship to and with him. Although many constituents of the left and right may not even recognize God, I believe the impetus for each side of the political spectrum is rooted in their basic views regarding mans nature and our relationship with God. As you have alluded, conservatives tend to see the world in absolutes - black and white - while liberals tend to see the world in 'shades of gray'. I agree partially. Many on the right (not all) view morality as black and whiteand unchanging. However, not every circumstance allows us (mere mortalssimple children of God) to quickly discern two sides that are definitively right or wrong. Yet, there is a right and a wronga good and an evil or to use your vernacular, a black and a white. Most of the time, it is very clear. Sometimes, its a little more difficult to figure out. With that said, believing in black and white morality does not preclude one from having compassion. Although, those on the political left would like everyone to believe otherwise.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Brent, EXACTLY thanks for chiming in I get a little tired of stating the obvious. Either folks on the left dont thoroughly examine their words before they say them, or they intentionally bring in red-herrings in an attempt to wear down their opposition. I tend to give folks credit for being intelligent enough to recognize whats clearly observable. Thus, Im left to conclude its just a tactic to achieve a stalemate on an un-winnable position, by exasperating those who wish to remain faithful to logic and a reasoned perspective. BTW, I offer my apologies to the late Mr. Dukes (not David Duke). (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Hunt, Well, both extremes are mean and nasty and twist the truth. You think those on the extreme right "listen to others or yield to reason?" For the most part - Those empowered on the right, denounce and isolate the likes of David Dukes (rare as they may be). Those empowered on the left, celebrate and embrace Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, and scores of others like them (no matter how often they creep out of the woodwork to exploit some sad event). Prairie_Scouter Rooster, when you say that the left takes advantage of every political situation to try and get the advantage, are you implying that the right doesn't do the same thing? Im saying that while you can recount the occasional episode stemming from the fringes of the right (i.e. candidate Bush whos supporters), its a way of life for those empowered on the left (there is a constant blather of misinformation streaming from the likes of Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry, etc.). Whether Reagan's presidency was a success is for history to determine. He did make America feel good about itself again after years of Watergate "mourning". Were you around when Reagan came to power? America wasnt in mourning because of Watergate. They were mourning from an ineffective presidency that permitted a third world county like Iran to hold the entire nation hostage. Just to make things more cheery, Carter oversaw double digit inflation, opened our borders to tens of thousands of Cuban felons, and boycotted the Olympics. If Watergate was still a sore point in 1979, then Carter managed to inflict our country with an array of other injuries to quite effectively mask that pain. Kahuna Personally, I don't think a man who so consistently injects himself into international affairs where he has no business and makes gratuitously nasty remarks about his successors in office can be considered a nice man. Carter has done a wonderful job with Habitat for Humanity and a couple of other causes of that sort, which, IMHO, is exactly where he should focus his activities. Amen.

Its easy to take the words of someone else and attempt to make them your own. You can cut and paste my words and substitute some of your own, to turn the tables so to speak, but this ability, does not make your words credible. Reagan ran on a valid platform. He was strong on defense, supported supply side economics, and offered many other planks to his platform. He ran on the issues. He brought many things to the table that Carter did not offer. Reagans strong leadership juxtaposed to Carters ineptness may have made it appear as it conservatives were name-calling, but in reality it was simply a study in contrast. While Carter may be a nice guy, his inability to lead this country was obvious to most, including our enemies. Thats not naming calling its truth. Furthermore, as true as it was, Reagan never had to call attention to it it was out in the open for everyone and anyone to see. You may recall, Reagan won by a landslide.

Another ditto...from one of those "angry", over-40, white males who's disheartened that the morality and common sense convictions held precious by previous generations has been trampled on and forgotten by so many. Dan Quayle was right. Murphy Brown was not the ideal mother, and certainly no father figure.

You can put "no difference" in CAPS all day long; it's not going to make me deaf, dumb, and blind to the politics of the day. I can see plainly how the left attempts to take advantage and manipulate every circumstance...every news story, to defame people on the political right. Facts are not important, only icing on the cake. And on the rare occasion that blind pig finds an acorn (i.e. the facts line up with the assertion), they feign as if its common place. No, the left is happy beating the drums of innuendo, and sounding the cymbals of baseless accusation. Its been their bread and butter for 30 years. Ever since Nixon shot himself in the foot with Watergate, theyve made it their platform for re-election. No need to provide solutions, just make the other guy look like hes Mr. Hyde. Its a repetitious and dull sound, which more and more folks are growing tired of hearing.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

One says, "I think the term 'arms' in the Second Amendment has to be interpreted strictly in terms of what the Framers understood it to mean--in other words, single-action, hand-held firearms." Given the above, Id say your example lacks creditability in that it fails to represent this assertion: reasonable people can and do disagree about what the Framers meant by the right to bear arms language Certainly, the framers of this utmost important document did not intend to create it in such a way that every technological advance would create an impetus for it to be rewritten or redefined. I have more respect for those men and the Constitution than to subject it to that kind of nonsense. Strict constructionists do not go on fishing expeditions to find ways to exclude clear and fundamental rights spelled out in the Constitution, and/or to include new rights which are not clearly stated. In other words, they dont seek avenues to create laws through legal precedent and/or reinterpretation. They strictly interpret the document unless there is overwhelming evidence to consider otherwise. Something the Supreme Court has failed to do on numerous occasions over the last 40 to 50 years.

What a country! - yes, I agree: John Rocker mouths off about how he hates to come to New York City. He laments that when he walks down certain streets, one cannot discern what country theyre living in - because everyone is speaking a different language, except English. He is of course, portrayed by the left as not only being insensitive to immigrants, but as a barefaced bigot. President Bush allows illegal aliens to obtain employment in the aftermath of Katrina. He is of course, portrayed by the left as not only being insensitive to unemployed Americans, but as a shameless supporter of big business. And we all know that big business is really code for evil, greedy, white, over-40 males who want to oppresswell, everybody else. Those controlling the political left will always find an angle to exploit. There is no circumstance in which they will give pause it matters not if the incident is momentous or trivial, joyful or tragic, real or imaginedthey cannot resist. No need to listen to others or to yield to reason. They have their cause and it is paramount no matter what. To reacquire support for their agenda to make themselves politically significant, they care not who they defame or ruin. In fact, many times they seem content to prey on people and circumstances attempting to destroy those folks that do not agree with them politically, as opposed to any real end that they might achieve such as world peace. What a joke. Excuse me. Was I scoffing?

What a country! - yes, I agree: John Rocker mouths off about how he hates to come to New York City. He laments that when he walks down certain streets, one cannot discern what country theyre living in - because everyone is speaking a different language, except English. He is of course, portrayed by the left as not only being insensitive to immigrants, but as a barefaced bigot. President Bush allows illegal aliens to obtain employment in the aftermath of Katrina. He is of course, portrayed by the left as not only being insensitive to unemployed Americans, but as a shameless supporter of big business. And we all know that big business is really code for evil, greedy, white, over-40 males who want to oppresswell, everybody else. Those controlling the political left will always find an angle to exploit. There is no circumstance in which they will give pause it matters not if the incident is momentous or trivial, joyful or tragic, real or imaginedthey cannot resist. No need to listen to others or to yield to reason. They have their cause and it is paramount no matter what. To reacquire support for their agenda to make themselves politically significant, they care not who they defame or ruin. In fact, many times they seem content to prey on people and circumstances attempting to destroy those folks that do not agree with them politically, as opposed to any real end that they might achieve such as world peace. What a joke. Excuse me. Was I scoffing?

packsaddle, I think your exposure to conservatism is very askew. If I lived in your neck of the woods, your neighbors probably would brand me as a liberal literally.

I think its a little bizarre that anyone could imply that Bush portrayed himself as something other than a conservative. But if it makes you feel better i.e. Bush was elected TWICE because he fooled America into believing that he really wasnt a conservative, then more power to you. By the way, say "hi" to Santa for me. Personally, I find labels to be quite useful in that they save time. If I tell you that I am a conservative, you can quickly summarize that theres a better than average chance that I am pro-life approve of vouchers and/or tax deductions for those who seek alternatives to public schools am inclined to believe that environmental concerns are overplayed favor tax breaks for businesses which stimulate the economy object to laws which appease special interest groups while ignoring the desires of the majority approve of prayer in public forums including schools loathe jurists that re-interpret laws and the Constitution to achieve their own ends vice the will of the people believe the government should find ways to support traditional families support law enforcement oppose probation for convicted felons despise entitlement programs am not inclined to believe that individuals prone toward certain sexual acts should be treated as a protected class Now obviously, this list is not comprehensive or all inclusive. But its a good bet that most conservatives would agree with most of the above. Its also a good bet that most liberals would reject most of the above. So while youre free to reject labels, I welcome them. Give me a label and Ill deal with the exceptions.

I haven't made up my mind on national ID cards yet. But thank you for informing me that not supporting such an idea, is an indication that one is unreasonable and an extremist. I guess should factor that wisdom in my decision making process, before I draw a conclusion.

What to do - What to do - Laugh or Cry? It's a real struggle. From what I've seen (in and out of Scouts), many agree with this oath without really understanding that they do. Today, standing firm for moral beliefs is often equated with narrow mindedness.

Kahuna, I agree 100%

I never claimed that Bush had things well in hand (whatever that might possibly mean) or even that Democratic politicians are clueless (no matter how apparent that may be). I basically said that I like Bush, as a man and as our leader. I trust his motives and his ability to make informed decisions. I earnestly believe Bush and his administration are doing as well as anyone has a right to expect. When all is said and done, I dont presuppose every action we take as a nation will lead to a positive result. No matter how financially prosperous, technically advanced, politically influential, militarily powerful, and culturally refined we may think we are as a nation, there are no guarantees in life. The best that I can hope for is that our leaders are intelligent, sincere, and determined to do what is good and right. I feel we have that in our current President. Others dont. So be it. But for the record, my post never stated or inferred that someone was responsible for 911. Frankly, without a crystal ball, I seriously doubt if anyone could have prevented the 911 attack. Even if we were able to anticipate their plan, I am convinced that they would have eventually found another avenue to bring about terror. Truth be told - we cannot stop common, everyday felons with very predictable if not clearly known behavior patterns, from committing crimes on a daily basis. That being the case - given a large supply of suicidal idiots, who have unlimited time and financial resources, and are willing to perform any heinous act to further the goals of Islam and to bring about the downfall of The Great Satan - I can imagine a myriad of ways in which they could inflict terror in this country. Pointing the finger of blame at one another for terrorist acts (and natural disasters for that matter) seems to be a pointless exercise. Not everything is within our control, as much as wed like to believe otherwise. What we need is some meat and potatoes ideas to counteract future attempts to inflict harm upon our country. Unfortunately, most of what Im seeing is political posturing, even when it means undermining a President who is trying to fight a very nasty enemy in an ugly war (one that needs to be fought today and not tomorrow). Okay, wasn't this thread entitled "Legalizing Illegal immigrants"? I say - Maybe. I understand the complaints made by many Americans that these folks are presenting a financial burden on our nation. Also, while many of these immigrates provide a source of cheap labor that would otherwise not be available to many employers - an argument can be made, if illegal immigration was impeded, hourly wages would rise. Employers would be forced to offer higher wages to legal citizens of this country, drawing out those individuals who otherwise would not be willing work such jobs. Then again, a counter argument to that line of reasoning is - increased hourly wages would lead to inflation. Regardless, my heart mainly lies with the Mexicans that I have met in my area of the country. Despite some previous posts made by others, I have found these folks to be generally - very sincere, friendly, and hardworking - people who I truly appreciate and admire on a number of levels. In short, I think most immigrates from the south (legal or not) are making positive contributions to our country. On the other hand, theres this little thing called the rule of law, which I believe should not be ignored. I see both sides. What I dont see or understand is some of the venom expressed towards some of these illegal immigrates (not necessarily expressed in this forum). We are blessed as a country. Perhaps we need to remind ourselves just how much at least enough to understand why others are desperately seeking to come here. We should be protective of this country, but we should never lose our compassion for others in the process. How do we do that? Thats the trick I havent figured it out yet.

As a die-hard conservative, and a huge Bush fan, I dont know enough about the border situation to counter your argument. That is to say, with thousands of miles of international borders (between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico) I dont know what is realistic and what is not. Perhaps you are in a position to know and offer some real helpful advice. I am not. I have placed my trust in the current administration. Certainly, I believe without hesitation, the Bush administration recognized the recurring threat of terrorism more quickly than those speaking for the Democratic Party four years ago and since. Theres been plenty of criticism from that side of the isle (in regard to the border situation and to the war on terrorism), but in the aftermath of 911, no one has offered any earth shaking ideas. Instead they cavalierly spew condemnation. Rather than being constructive and helpful to the current administration, they seem to prefer to malign the Presidents actions and motives, and as a result denigrate our nation in the worlds eyes. They are myopically focused on the next election and thus their efforts are always aimed accordingly. So for this reason alone, I prefer conservative politicians over liberals. At least conservatives understand that their words have weight, meaning, and consequences - not only for the American electorate, but for the rest of the world. In the end, without the intelligence and resources that the federal government offers our leaders, I think most so-called solutions offered by anyone in the media and/or the general public are nave, if not outright ignorant. If this is true (and Im sure many will not take it as a given), then the only thing we can do is trust those empowered in our government to obtain the necessary knowledge and to make the proper decisions. If thats true, then the character issue goes much deeper than some would like to think. So if you truly believe that Bush is an inept self-serving idiot who in effect is a puppet of the oil gods, then I guess you lose a lot of sleep at night. I happen to think that hes a sincere, intelligent, down-to-earth, unpretentious, God fearing man who loves our country. With that said, I sleep very well.

EagleInKY, Unless other arrangements were made (e.g., someone loaned a personal vehicle or trailer to the unit), the chartering organization owns all of the equipment and property. In short, to my knowledge, the CO is under no obligation to pick among the three options you presented. They are free to do as they please with their own assets. In fact, they do not have to wait for the unit to fold.

Hunt, I agree. However, Im not sure every biblical precept can or ought to be transferred to a government policy or rule of law, even if Christians possessed the authority to do so. For example: Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. I understand this to mean that I should not seek retribution. So for me, personally, I know I need to be more self-sacrificing. That is to say, I should not be vengeful towards those who have done me harm. But does this mean I should never support a government that would implement the death penalty for a child killer? Its not so clear cut to me under these circumstances. Furthermore, the apostle Paul had this to say about government authority. Perhaps illegal aliens should take it to heart. 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. Romans 13:1-3

Okay Hunt I went back and saw your goats and sheep comment. In regard to this debate, it has some validity especially when discussing individuals. Yet, Im not sure how or if it applies to governmental policies. These policies were not created to harm, but to protect. Are not governments supposed to create policies which secure the interests of its people? In a perfect world, governments can afford to create policies that look out for the interests of everyone from every nation. However, we dont live in a perfect world. With that said, are immigration policies evil or are they just realistic? As individuals, we are taught by Gods Word to turn the other cheek. Yet, many Christians support strong anti-crime laws which demand that offenders be imprisoned. Are these laws immoral? Are Christians who support such laws turning their back on their faith?

I submit that the only difference is that the so-called "Christian Right" takes such a blatantly non-Christian approach to this issue that they'd prefer that the religious and moral dimensions be ignored. One Question: What is the Bible teaching or mandate that says a country has a moral obligation to open its borders to all foreigners and treat those new comers as equal partners? Personally, Im not sure where I stand on the immigration issue. I definitely believe that we need to control our borders better. However, I fail to see how the Christian Right can be condemned for their stance on this issue. Id like to see that demonstrated a little better with specifics, as opposed to a blanket smear. FYI Zogby Poll of California Voters on Immigration: 62% say immigration makes education reform more difficult; 67% oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants; 72% oppose giving reduced tuition for illegal immigrants; 83% of immigrant citizens say jobs to foreigners only if no Americans available; 65% of black Americans favor a moratorium on legal immigration.

SA, Yes - thanks for the prompt, yet embarrassing, correction. I indeed meant to say Czech. As for the disorganized rant - I'm not sure how disorganize it was or wasn't, but I knew instantly what the author meant. And I think many others do as well. Unfortunately, in today's politically correct world, when one tries to explain these feelings, they are easily misinterpreted and/or twisted into something that sounds more akin to latent bigotry than outrage for a proud heritage that's being maligned. I love my countrys history good, bad, and indifferent because it makes us who we are today. Also, I am proud of the Christians that came to this country and made their mark. So, when others try to downplay, wipe out, or disparage their deeds, I take offense. Similarly, when customs and traditions stemming from that history are summarily dismissed under the banner of diversity, it strikes a deep nerve. All peoples should be able to enjoy the Christmas season without sacrificing their own identity. This requires no more effort than what my children might have to exert during Black History Month. Of course, the said rant and the comments of others in this thread eventually leads to another discussion one thats been beaten to death here and elsewhere. Where to draw the line between state and church? For me, the recognition of a particular faith and/or the customs and traditions stemming from the same, does not constitute the establishment of a state religion. Nor is an acknowledgement of God As in God we trust, the establishment of a state religion. They are simply acknowledgments. For over 200 years, since the Constitution was written, the U.S. government has recognized the existence of God? It is not a religion. No one is being forced to follow the precepts of a particular faith. Even if the U.S. government recognizes the tradition of Christmas, no religion is being established. The government is merely paying homage to the customs and traditions practiced by the vast majority of its citizens. That respect, shown by the government, does not negate anyones ability to practice a different religion. While Merlyn likes to speak of atheism as if its a religion, most know better. And even if by contemporary standards one can make an argument that atheism is a religion, its abundantly clear what the founding fathers intended i.e. that there should be no mandate by the government for its citizens to follow a particular faith. Our government has ardently been true to that mandate. Sadly, the movement in the last 30 years or so has been for the government to erase all acknowledgements of faith and God from public view.

They probably like "Uncle Sam, the flag, or the pledge, or the national motto" just fine...But they don't want to say anything positive about the Christian and/or European roots of our country. Nor do they want to recognize the positive influences in this nation created by those who embrace God, and most in particularly Christians.