Rooster7

To no one in particular, I knew I was going to allow myself to be drawn in as soon as I made the first post sorryits a disease. ;-) As posted by Neilup: I had the opportunity a couple of days ago to talk with a member of the National Health and Safety Committee who is one of the custodians of the G2SS. I asked about the ban on laser tag and other things. He said that any activity which intends to do harm to another human being mimics doing harm to another human being imitates or simulates doing harm to another human being is forbidden. To me, the above as well intended as it may be is absolute political correctness. As OGE and FOG have pointed out, 11 to 17 year-old boys can differentiate between a game that demands strategy and the mock destruction of ones opponent and real war or mayhem. Adrianvs, In response to your post - I believe Baden Powell would roll over in his grave if he saw this thread. While he and others did not want Scouting turned into a paramilitary organization, Baden Powell saw the wisdom of preparing boys to become men including the possibility of war. In fact, the tracking skills that you described were not accidental or in spite of its implications, they were inspired by their real world application. In case some folks are confused, I offer this. Although, I still maintain that boys know the difference between games and the real thing I dont believe we should shelter them from anything that might be considered useful should these boys find themselves in the real world even war, perhaps most especially so (i.e., Be Prepared). Dsteele, Let's not make Capture the Flag a restricted activity. Let's not make squirt gun fights a restricted activity. Obey the rules. Lazer tag is a restricted activity. We don't teach kids to hunt people. Leave that to the military. It is not our role. You described FOGs comments as sarcasm. I disagree. The same logic that concluded paintball and laser tag as some sort of evil drove his conclusions. If you want to defend this position based on reason, you have to be willing to defend that line of reasoning when it is extended to its logical end. Capture the Flag and squirt gun fights have the same elements (simulated war, humans hunting humans, etc.) as laser tag and paintball. They may be allowed per BSA rules, but there are no distinguishable differences. By using the same logic (posted by Neilup, and Dsteeles We don't teach kids to hunt people.), heres another activity that the BSA needs to restrict chess (and many other board games). It seems to be me, chess pieces represent noblemen such as bishops, kings, and queens (human beings) and the playing of the game simulates harm upon the same. You can discount this as sarcasm as youve done so with others, but as Ive noted It is the same flawed logic. YES OBEY THE BSA RULES. I dont believe anyone said differently. But if a rule doesnt make sense, no one has an obligation to remain silent. Its just as responsible and noble to call attention to a bad rule, albeit through proper channels, as it is to obey the rules. While this forum doesnt qualify as proper channels, we are here to discuss issues and perhaps garner support for our views. Is there anything wrong with that?

sst3rd, Given your responses, this is how I would address the situation (although it's certainly not the only valid approach). Since he is still registered, and you acknowledge there were no boundaries or limitations established by the troop prior to him expressing an interest, I would let him go on the outing. But I would also institute through the PLC and the troop committee a troop policy for future events (i.e., a Scout must attend primer meetings prior to a planned outing, dues paid in full, etc.). Also, I would advise this particular Scout that you want to welcome him back with open arms, but you have expectations for him in regard to his future interaction with the troop. I realize and agree that all Scouts, especially older experienced boys, need to make a contribution to the troop. However, if the troop is functioning well without a boy's participation, why not try to nurse him along and bring him back into the fold? If he's a good kid as you described, what would you be risking by reaching out to him. As a detached outsider, it does appear to me that you could be harboring some resentment towards the mother. At the risk of incurring your wrath, have you considered the possibility that on a subconscious level you may be trying to get back at mom? You seem awfully quick to label this well-behaved Scout as a slacker, simply because he chose to leave Scouting shortly after obtaining the Eagle rank. As I tried to say before, isnt it our job to reach out, keep, and mentor as many boys as possible? To me, the only reason not to reach out and be accomodating would be if this kid had great potential to ruin the program for others. If you're worried about sending the wrong message, then discuss it with the boy or boys that need to hear the right message.

I don't want to engage anyone in this debate, but if I were the "BSA dictator", laser tag and paintball would be permitted. I see no real danger especially as compared to so many other activities (rafting, climbing, etc.). I don't have a moral issue with it either. I don't believe any of these kids are going to turn on their parents, teachers, or friends. I tried paintball with a bunch of Scouts a few years back when it was on a "not recommended list" of some kind. It was one of our best outings. The kids (and adults) had a blast. In fact, I would describe it as a bonding experience. They couldn't wait to do it again. Unfortunately, that was not to be... I wonder, of all the troops that tried paintball, how would they rate the experience incredible, good, fair, bad, horrible? My bet is on incredible, especially if the boys were allowed to rate the activity.

I could go either way with this discussion. It's a little difficult to make a judgment without being there - to see the circumstances of this story as it unfolds and to get to know the boy as he reveals himself to be. Having made the appropriate disclaimer, here's some questions to think about: 1) Ignoring the fact that he quit after his Eagle ceremony, how would you judge this boy's character? Was he an otherwise decent kid? 2) Assuming he's registered and there are no pre-existing ground rules for attending trips, by what premise do you deny him an opportunity to attend a Troop trip? Are you making an arbitrary judgment, and justifying it because you have the presumed authority to do so as the SM? 3) Isn't it our job to encourage boys to stay in Scouts, even if a boy hasn't been the model Scout? Has his past behavior been so bad that you feel prompted to ignore the aforementioned, and in fact strive for the opposite effect? If so, was this ever brought to the committee's attention? 4) If you normally, as a matter of tradition, give certain things (proclamations, flags, etc.) to an Eagle scout, but have decided not to for a particular boy for the reasons you stated - shouldn't you (or perhaps you did) advise the said boy that this will be one consequence of his decision to quit (among others) and give him the opportunity to reconsider? 5) Does your stance with this boy have anything to do with his mother? 6) Is there a chance - that if you give him a chance (let him attend an outing), hell regain his interest in Scouting? I ask the above questions, because as a father of three boys, my first instinct is to think of my kids and the kinds of mistakes that they have made and/or are still capable of making. I'd like to think that their Scoutmaster would consider their youthful indiscretions as being just that before passing judgment on them and discarding any attempt to bring them back in line. If the kid in question has been a constant thorn in yours and the troop's backside, then I can see the wisdom in your post. If he's been an otherwise good kid (the Eagle rank usually means something positive exists within his being), then I'd hope you'd give him the benefit of the doubt (regardless of what you feel about his reasoning of being "burnt out") and encourage him to come back to Scouting. In other words, I wouldn't send him away simply because he was not active for a period of time. But as I already noted, I'm not there to experience what you've experienced - You know best. I just hope you're keeping an open mind and heart - within reason. Twenty years from now, are you going to be saying to yourself Man, Im glad that kid left the troop and spared us his presence! or Man, I should of given that kid a little more slack and taken the opportunity to teach him more! Im not saying I know the right answer but, I think you do.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Littlebillie, here's what you said about me: "You claim that its the mothers risk to take." And here's what I actually said: '...here's where I intellectually take the PC cop-out of individual choice"' Frankly, I thought my entire post was full of references to my indecision, still weighing all sides, and so on. I thought since we were discussing abortion and you were taking the PC cop-out of individual choice, it was safe to assume that you met the mothers choice and her assumption of risk. Also, I failed to see how your indecision nullified this statement - so I addressed it. If youve reconsidered your position, I will declare a cease fire. As far as my Q&A session with God, I never said we (those who query God) should know all of the answers. I tried to express this - Whenever we are in doubt, we should never presume God's Will or attempt to act as if we do. If we truly humble ourselves and admit our limited knowledge (not only in regard to when does life begin but also in regard to Gods Will), abortion would never be an option. At best, by all appearances, it is murder. At worst, its out-and-out rebellion against God. Packsaddle, Making them illegal just changes the venue, but if that is all it takes to satisfy you I suppose that's good enough. Here too we disagree. Making them illegal sets a moral standard. Those that wish to break that standard, do so at a risk to themselves physically and also under penalty of law. Furthermore, the law in and of itself sends a message to those that come under it - our society has deemed this choice to be morally unacceptable.

Kasane, Well, lets get this straight right now gentlemen. The moment you guys get pregnant, you get the chance to decide whether to carry to term or not. This kind of nonsense wasnt completely unexpected. Lets turn the tables a little. Ladies, the day you can impregnate yourself without the aid of a man or God, you get to make decisions about that baby without any outside say. Or, how about this amoral premise the day you can rape a man, you get the chance to decide whether or not a rapist goes to jail. Kasane, you supposition is every bit as insane and inane. I dont have to be a female to know and understand the immorality of abortion. So do yourself a favor and abandon that tact Its insulting to men and women. Packsaddle, OK Rooster7, I suppose some cataclysm that wiped out civilization could potentially eliminate the knowledge base that includes the abortion procedure. But it's fairly simple and probably would be rediscovered quickly. Short of that, the genie (the ability) is out of the bottle. The choice has always been there, always will be. So what if the genie is out of the bottle? In regards to murder, the genie has been out of the bottle since Cain killed Abel. Yet, we still have laws against murder. Just because irrational folks are willing to murder innocent life and risk their own, I see moral imperative to legalize it. Desperation and foolishness should not be used as a yardstick to measure the moral acceptability of peoples behavior. Littlebillie, At what point, and by what mechanism does a soul happen? Most, if not all of your questions, are questions that you should ask God one day. Ironically, many in our society cannot leave it at that they want to play God. Theyd rather risk His wrath, than be inconvenienced while they walk on earth. You claim that its the mothers risk to take. If the only life that was in question were her own, Id tend to agree with you. However, I have no reason to view the unborn child as anything but a living being an innocent child. Thats not going to change as long as God gives me a conscience.

Adrianvs, I must have been distracted by some of the other comments...and I lumped you in with them. My sincere apology. Peace.

Its really very simple. Abortion is the murder of an innocent child usually for the convenience of some selfish adults. The death penalty is not. Thats right. It is the execution of a murderer. The appropriate sentence for those in our society that do not value innocent life and who kill the same. So, when our government kills a murderer, they are not killing an innocent life. Thus, they are not committing murder. They are merely enforcing a just law. Christians, see Romans 13. Scoutldr, To those who dare criticize a woman's (or woman-child's) decision to have an abortion, I have just one question. How many have you adopted? First, the United States does not have a problem finding parents for newborn babies. Second, even if it did, that fact doesnt preclude me from making a moral judgment on abortion. Your declaration is equivalent to saying Those who dare criticize a mans decision to abandon his family, I have one question. How many children have you supported? Both questions are inane. Packsaddle, I consider decisions between a physician and a patient to be their business and their responsibility alone. Not mine nor anyone else's. Hmmm. So, all doctors, by virtue of being a doctor, make morally sound decisions, which cannot be questioned by any one but the patient. Is that right? Some how I cant believe that you believe that to be true. Regardless, in reality, the unborn child is the patient he/she is the one that is having his/her life terminated. Who speaks for the child? The mother who cares more about her personal convenience than that of a childs innocent life? As for the death penalty, I cannot conceive of Jesus supporting or condoning any person to be killed. Period. And I don't claim to have a higher authority than that. Obviously many do. What do you think about God the father? He was able to kill. He once killed a couple of Israelites for simply touching the Ark of the Convent. God delegated authority to governments. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rules are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is Gods servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. ROMANS 13 (RSV) 1 - 4 As for the other topic, no-one I know likes abortion. But that ability is here and NOTHING will eliminate that ability or the choice to use it. Nothing. NothingThats pretty definitive. And yet, I dont see one fact that backs up that claim other than your declarative statement. I feel that it should be made by the individuals who best know the case and who bear the responsibility for it: the physician and the patient. Again, I hear no mention of the child and his/her choice. And what about the father? Oh yeah, hes just some self-centered man. How dare I bring him into the topic! Adrianvs, "No, I am not "for" abortion. But neither am I "for" bringing an unwanted, unloved child into the world, to a "parent" who cannot care for it either financially or emotionally." First, if hes being brought into the world, he will be loved by God. But if youre not a Christian, maybe you can relate to that statement. No matter. Have you ever heard of adoption? Despite scoutldrs implication, the child will be adopted quickly. If not, theres still the sticky matter of murdering an innocent childso maybe we should just forget about the inconvenience of the mother, and concentrate on the innocence of the child! hops_scout, Short, sweet, and very astute. I like your style. Kasane, Yes, this is a "women's rights issue". Without their political pressure in the latter half of the last century, women would probably still be terminating their pregnancies with knitting needles and bleach. Man! What does that say about women? I thought we (men) were supposed to the sex with the most base and cruelest nature. What do you think about a woman who think its more desirable to murder a child with bleach and then tear it apart bit by bit with a knitting needle, than to carry it to term. Just out of curiosity - Would this be the same knitting needle that she would use to darn some baby socks if she happens to change her mind? I have no doubt that some women just might do as you described. If so, while I hope they survive any such ordeal it would be a self-inflicted ordeal. As such, it will take Gods grace and inspiration to make me understand such a woman. Her selfishness, her desire to have an unencumbered life, her unbridled obsession to have her will done at the expense of her baby - will not reverse my stand against the murdering of innocent children. She can discuss the "morality" of the matter with herself, her religious counselor or any counselor (friend, social worker, etc) that she cares to pick. Hmmm. Why dont we take the same position with rapists? Your supposition seems extremely silly to me.

SR540Beaver, I don't know, let's ask George Bush and Al Gore. Nice shot...and your point is taken. I don't have a problem with changing our Constitution and getting rid of the Electoral College. Hey, then maybe my vote in Maryland might mean something. However, being that we do have the Electoral College, and to my knowledge Al Gore and most of America had no problem with that fact prior to the 2000 election, I have no problem with the process or the outcome. But for future Presidential elections - hell yeah - I'd love to see my vote mean something. NJ, In other words, I read the "If" to be a rhetorical device, meaning: What comes after the "if" is true, and should lead to the results that come later in the sentence. If you truly meant the sentence to merely be hypothetical, then fine, but... I actually meant both - Yes - I think most Americans still believe homosexuality to be a perversity. But I wasn't stating it as a definitive - I intended to use the word as it was meant to be, as part of a conditional phrase. By the way, a lot of teenagers grow up. So dont get your hopes up for that glorious future that youre predicting. Believe it or not, I was once a long hair, "can't wait for a second Woodstock", flaming liberal when I was about 17 or 18. Of course, after I went to college, I realized that most my political views had more to do with arrogance (thinking that my generation had its act together, more so than my fathers or his fathers), naivet (thinking that my generation had its act together, more so than my fathers or his fathers), and hormones (wanting to hook up with a van full of girls in hip huggers who espoused the same free love that I was looking for) more than anything else that comes close to logic or faith.

NJ, I never said morality could be decided by a majority vote. What I did say was, concerning moral issues; the government should respect the will of the people (via majority vote). I may not be happy with the outcome, but Id rather live by the standards set by the majority (here on earth), then to have those standards dictated to me by politicians who in many causes are just pandering to special interest groups. As for some states treating homosexuals as a protected class (like race or gender), this does not necessarily mean the majority of voters are being given due consideration. While many folks are opposed to homosexuality, they very often treat the issue as if its of minor importance. Consequently, many states carried by democrats, tend to get their candidate in office not because he/she embraces gays, but in spite of it. Nevertheless, if the majority of voters made it so, either by referendum or by getting their man in office, Id accept it for what it is the will of the people. As I said I may not like it, but itd be better then laws born out of political pandering. The fact that I accept this as a fair way to govern a nation of people does not mean I accept the resulting standard of morality. Linking this back up to Scouting, the BSA is a private/national organization that should be free to create and impose a national standard. Here too, I may not always like the outcome. But then again, my family and I are always free to leave and/or to seek out a new organization that is more closely aligned with our values. Life is about choices. Those empowered to direct the BSA, have the right/choice to create and impose standards for that particular organization. You, as an ordinary member, have the right/choice to stay or leave.

A conservative would have them both locked up for fear of letting the criminal go free. No. A conservative would give both men a fair trial and let the chips fall where they may. Certainly innocent men have been jailed before. However, all we can do is weigh the evidence and act accordingly. What a conservative would not do, is create a parole system that allows violent men to go back into society simply because they got their act together for a few months just so they could gain back their freedom. Sadly, when liberals in the justice system allow this to happen, the resulting damage rarely affects them directly. No, its some other guys family who is shattered when their daughter is raped, their son killed, or inflicted with some other act of callous violence. I've got a question for all of the self proclaimed conservatives out there. How do you interpret the "A Scout is trustworthy" part of the BSA law? My guess is that you feel it only applies to you, i.e. "I should make myself trustworthy." I agree. Most conservatives probably do only think of themselves when repeating this oath. That's not to say others can never be trusted - But the reality is, we can only control our own behavior. Others need to demonstrate that they can be trusted. Obviously, I am not referencing everyday exchanges between acquaintances - but I wouldn't ask a teenage boy to baby-sit my daughter just because he's a Scout. People tend to live up to their expectations. Why not set them high? Typical liberal drivel...Sorry, but this statement highlights the basic difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals - all people tend to have good tendencies. Conservatives - all people tend to have bad tendencies. It should be noted, while I believe this simple premise to be true - recognizing people, as having bad tendencies is not the same thing as thinking all people will do bad things. However, society does need to recognize the condition of man and address him accordingly.

kasane, The majority of voters - how complicated is that?

Achilleez, For a person so devoutly intent on following God's Word, you sure don't seem to put much stock in his forgivingness. I forgive my children whenever they misbehave. However, I still punish them...they still suffer a consequence for bad behavior. So, if a criminal does not have enough sense to stop stealing, beating, raping, etc. - and thus he continues to suffer a consequence such as a life behind bars, his plight has nothing to do with God's ability to forgive. In fact, it is the criminal himself who needs to search his heart. I feel for those that suffer a lose as a result of a man's bad choices in life. However, my ability to sympathize, forgive, and love my fellow man, does not and should not affect a man's consequences for bad behavior. The business of government is to protect and serve the innocent. It is not their place to forgive transgressions - they should concentrate on governing according to the law. The matter of forgiveness belongs to others like God, the victim, and his family. Lastly, God's forgiveness will benefit those who seek it when they leave this world. That's something men should think about, especially if they're on death row.

OGE, I enthusiastically accept your challenge. Heres a post thats way too long, but you should have seen that one coming when you opened this can of worms! So here it is...something for everyone. I am a political and social conservative. My conviction to right wing conservative causes is rooted in two power forces that drive much of my life logic and faith. Despite the yammering of many on the left, most people that believe as I do are not driven by ignorance, bigotry, and fear. Quite to the contrary, we recognize reality, embrace truth, and trust in the Lord. That's not an answer to Old Grey Eagles questionbut before I breakdown my beliefs any further (political and religious), I wanted to quickly counter what surely would have been some contrived, knee-jerk, liberal, slander against me and my ilk (that was not addressed to anyone in particular). Now for the details I am politically conservative because my observations of mankind tell me the following: Men are NOT generally good hearted, unselfish beings. We like to think we are, but even amongst the best of the best, most humans fall prey to temptations. Our condition is such that we should not be trusted to have the best of intentions. We should be very guarded, not only against one another, but also against our very own nature. Much of what we do and say is derived from our selfish hearts. The facts that support my position are this: 1) I know myself. I am tempted very often to do the wrong thing. Occasionally (and that might be hedging), I fall prey to those temptations. 2) I know my family. They have their own temptations and I have seen them fall prey to them. 3) I know my friends. They too, often fall prey to temptations. 4) I know my neighbors. Many of which, make my family, friends, and myself look good. 5) I know the crime the statistics. They support my theory too. 6) You know yourself. If you deny having selfish desires and a heart bent on temptation, I unashamedly and unapologetically say to you - Liar! While the vast majority of the population has not been found guilty of wrongdoing and sentenced to jail, I am convinced that every person had or has the potential to become a criminal, if it were not for traditional values, dedicated families, and laws with teeth. The first two factors are beyond the control of the government. And nor should they ever attempt to control or teach them. The government is simply an institution created and controlled by other men. These men can fall prey to temptation just like the rest of us. I prefer a government that is limited in scope and constrained by laws. Obviously, our forefathers had similar feelings when they created the Constitution. Strong laws, inspired by and for the people, is what an administration should rely on to govern the people. These laws, if they are going to be effective, need to address the true condition of man. For example, if penalties are not created to deter men from becoming perpetrators or repeat offenders, laws have little affect. As I said, laws need to have teeth. They need to confront and deal with the reality of mans self-serving nature. I support strong sentences, including the death penalty. I support three-time loser laws. I am vehemently opposed to the parole system (time off for good behavior). If the aforementioned laws are enforced, and the justice system behaves accordingly, I believe gun control laws are counter-intuitive. They take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Those who would do harm to you, or rob you, would obtain a gun in spite of those laws. Furthermore, many gun control laws would do nothing but disempowered the people from protecting themselves, and increase the power of the government to control the people with minimal effort. Neither of these outcomes is good. While I support some welfare programs for the truly vulnerable and/or helpless, I also recognize mans tendencies. I believe many welfare programs feed peoples propensity to allow others to do for them, what they really can do for themselves. These systems feed our temptations. Why should people work 40 hours per week and leave welfare, when they can make similar money doing nothing? The welfare system should be a safety net for those that are justly reliant on others. For others, it should be a temporary - a very temporary measure of relief. I believe we should have a very strong defense and an active intelligence community. Why? Humans, who have a very selfish nature, are the architects of all the nations. Some have managed to control themselves because they have adopted standards and hold themselves accountable. Others merely pretend that they do. These nations are waiting for an opportunity. These governments have no apparent moral conscience. They will freely slaughter whoever gets in their way. Now, with the threat of terrorism, I believe it is even more important. Rogue nations are trying to further their cause and at the same time to disavow any association with these acts of violence. We need to root out and deter or destroy these governments (whatever it takes), before they find a way to undermine us as a nation. I believe in a strong free market economy. Our nation has prospered for many generations. We need to maintain a market where hard working individuals and enterprising businesses (small and large) can thrive. While there is a need for some regulating of businesses and industry, in the past, some regulatory bodies have overstepped their bounds of authority. They need to be careful that they do not suffocate our economy with regulatory laws born out of political activism. Regulatory laws should address real and proven threats to the economy, the environment, workers, and/or the consumer. I believe an unborn baby is just that, and not a piece of tissue that can be discarded like a bad kidney. Pro-choice proponents argue that an unborn baby, with his mother in the tri-semester, can be aborted by the most heinous of measures. They say, Prove to us that this fetus is a living being. I say, since we know a fetus will definitely become a human being, Prove to us when it ever stopped being one. I believe a nation of people can and should set moral standards for itself. If the collective nation recognizes homosexuality as a perversity, then politicians and the courts should honor that standard. Jurists and those who hold office should not attempt to treat behavior as a protected class, especially when it flies in the face of the peoples will. All of the above conclusions are based on logic. God gave us logic. I have no doubt that He expects us to use it and to use it often. Nevertheless, I am a social conservative because I believe in the Word of God. Although, I believe every conservative social issue can be debated with pure logic, my faith dictates my beliefs even more so. I know that the human heart has the capacity to deceive, including oneselfso much so that I rather put my trust in the Lord then depend on my own logic. That being said, Ive never had to abandon an argument based on logic to embrace my faith. The two have always been mutually agreeable. When I give to the poor, it is born of my free will, as God would have it. It wont be because I supported a government, which thinks it is wiser than I and responsible for enforcing entitlement programs. When I support a mother, it wont be by supporting the murder of her innocent baby. When I support those on welfare, it wont be through a program that callously creates a world of dependence on others. God tells us to love everyone, but he doesnt tell us to ignore sin. So yes, I can care for a homosexual, but I am not commanded to accept his behavior. Liberals like to believe that they think the best of mankindthat all men are basically good. This is probably true for most liberals. Unfortunately, if youre a Christian, it contradicts what the Bible teaches you not to mention what common sense should show you - but I digress. I suppose they think that they are optimistic, as opposed to those coldhearted conservatives who are pessimistic. Really, it isnt a great wonder that there is such a great chasm between liberals and conservatives, especially if born-again Christians comprise a majority of the conservatives. This liberal ideology directly contradicts Gods Word. Let me tell you a secret, mankind is NOT basically good. Mankind is basically bad, or more to the point - evil. Were so far apart on this point liberals and conservatives its amazing that this country has had only one Civil War. About the only time liberal politicians believe that there is evil in the world, is when they are losing a political battle to a conservative. Then, all of a sudden, all sorts of evil things are happening. Hes a bigot. Hes a sexist. Hes a warmonger. He doesnt care about the little guy. Hes abandoning the poor. Hes abandoning the elderly. His only concern is for the wealthy. They dont argue strategies for governing- they slander opponents. When they get caught in their own wrongdoings real events as opposed to the unproven accusations that they heap upon their opponents, then suddenly they want to talk issues. Those that argue that liberals are compassionate, do so out of ignorance. It is not compassionate to support every cause, every behavior, just to be accepting. In fact, in my mind, the Democrats in leadership do this simply to garner votes from special interest groups. If this idea were applied to every family, all of our children would be amoral, self-serving, degenerates. No my friend, it is much more difficult, and much more compassionate, to love with discipline. Listen to your children, but correct them when they stray. Set boundaries and monitor them closely. I know it takes a lot more energy, but one has much better results. No one likes to be a disciplinarian. I dont want to make my children unhappy by confining them, or spanking them, or taking some privilege away. Id much rather be remembered as the dad who always showed compassion and love. However, my children will not learn if I dont provide them with consequences. I remain intent on deterring them from bad behaviors so that they do not develop habits and attitudes that will harm them and others in the future. Similarly, I believe our government needs to enforce laws without leniency so that the citizenry will learn that certain behaviors will not be accepted or tolerated. If that means some people will spend a lifetime behind bars, so be it. The law should serve to protect the people and to enforce their will. It is should not be used a tool by liberals to conduct social experiments to demonstrate their compassion. So, one might ask himself, What does Rooster7 think motivates liberals to be the way he describes them to be? For most folks, I think one word can summarize it: self-deception. Why? Too many reasons to list but from a faith prospective, one reason is this: Its easier to believe that all men are basically goodthat there are no real evil people in worldthat God loves all of us and well all be with Him one dayor to believe there is no God and we only need to be accountable to ourselvesthen it is to come to grips with ones own sin (or the sin of someone we love) and accept God as the Holy and Righteous God He is. The God of the Bible tells us to fall on our face and trust in Him. For some people, thats just too much to ask for. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

jerry, For a guy who has "no idea", you sure like to talk a lot about the subject. I agree with one thing, you really do have "no idea". As evident by this inane statement: They asked the American companies that sold them to Saddam. Also, what is this suppose to mean: That evil Saddam Hussein, he gassed the Kurds. And Bush is angry about it. Well, Saddam Hussein did this when Bush's dad was president. Because the U.S. chose not to respond at that particular time, are you vindicating Saddam Hussein as something less than evil?

bsat4jb, While it may have been stated without much forethought, I understood your point. I would not say you made an idiot of yourself. There are some on this board, due to their direct experience with war who may be less forgiving. Nevertheless, despite your poor word choice, I didn't get the impression that you thought it was a soldiers duty to die. I would suggest that you consider everyone in the audience before you hit the "Submit Your Message" button next. I understood and agreed with your two points...just not with the style of delivery. Even then, some might defend it as simply being blunt. Don't be too hard on yourself.

And what exactly would you tell the boys? This guy really knew how to toot a horn?

krewser, I hear, understand, and agree with your sentiments. I am familiar with the type. I'm just a little sensitive to accusations. I've been around the block too many times to trust anything at face value... Any way, hopefully you've heard the last of her.

"What I want to do to you right now would get me thrown in jail. If I were an eight year old girl I would kick your butt!". Inappropriate - yes. Over the top - yes. A threat - ??? Since she's not an eight year-old girl, I don't think we can call this a threat. It sounds more like a frustrated adult who's trying to communicate her anger, but not a threat. If the boy said, "If I was a 40 year-old woman, I'd kick your butt!" - would we call that an actual threat? If she said, "If I see you again" or "If you ever do this again" or "If you mess up again", then I would say yes - this was a threat. But I don't think there's very much chance that she's going to turn into an eight year-old girl. Having said the above, I do think her response was emotional and gives cause for alarm. But as others have mentioned (even with your follow up story), there's not enough here for anyone to talk specifics.

The struggle might find more acceptance if the evidence of positive results and forward motion were easier to see. Of this, I agree. I am a strident supporter of President Bush. Despite the characterizations of liberals, I believe he is a man of the people who loves God and country. However, if I were able to speak to him as a trusted compatriot, I would offer the same advise as Saltheart. The American people need to know that our efforts will bring about an outcome worth the price. Or at the very least, we need continual reminders that our cause is noble and just. I trust that both are true, but in times of war when sons and daughters are paying the ultimate price, a leader must make this crystal clear, time and time again. Unfortunately, when President Bush comes to the American people to offer them encouragement and hope for the future, I have no doubt that the liberals in the media and elsewhere will do their best to tear him down and paint an entirely different picture. So Saltheart, while I agree, I hope youre not trusting most of the media to confirm or deny whether our country is pursuing a noble goal. Take heart ;-) - I think we have a good man in the office who truly cares for this country and those who serve her.

Section 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

bobmarley54, It was sorely needed... You're idiot! If that offends, I'm sorry. It was a message that was sorely needed.

denver4und@aol.com, I will back up my stance in due time...But before I "put up", I'd just like to point out that you have not made your argument yet, at least not one based on law. You've made claims, like the election was stolen by the Supreme Court. However, I have not seen any logic or reason to back that up. Instead of pointing me to a legal document, why don't you tell me in your own words how the Constitution was circumvented by these jurists?

denver4und@aol.com, First, you don't know what my professional qualifications may be. Second, while I have read your post stating that you are a lawyer, it hardly qualifies as concrete evidence. In fact, your subsequent statements give me good reason to doubt your claim. But you being the qualified professional that you claim to be, already knew that - right?

Merlyn and Paddlesack, Please enlighten us. You present arguments that are very much founded on your personal world view, yet you criticize other people for doing the same. So, you seem to think science is on your side. That's difficult to believe, since rather than stating this factual argument (that apparently in your view falls within the realm of "basic biology"), you opt out by inferring I'm too ignorant or bigoted to understand it. It doesn't sound like you have the facts on your side. You're right about one thing, even if you could prove it as genetic (and I stand unconvinced of that), I would still view homosexuality unfavorably - along the same lines as alcoholism and other diseases. But the question is not, What would Rooster7 think if it could be proven to be genetically inherited? The question is, Why is the homosexual population not dwindling? My basic biology class tells me it should be. Some might argue that it's thriving, not dewindling. Could it simply be, as society embraces homosexuality as a legitimate orientation, others are allowing themselves to sink into that depraved world?