TheScout

No. Why? Because white Christians make up the vast majority of our population. The percentage that wants to committ such attacks from that group is much lower, especially considering the longer time they have been here. They have also made up the great majority of American political, military, and social leaders over the past two centuries and are responsible for most of our scientific research and industrial progress. I would say overall the benefits white Americans have brought to this country FAR outstripe the damage done by Mr. McVeigh and Mr. Niccols. Also remember Merlyn, I have ne

ASM915, Brotherly love is great when we can give it. But our first responsibility is to protect the lives and liberties of American citizens. The comparison with Germans in the 1940's is out of whack. At that point there had been many Germans in the country for over 200 years and made of a significant part of the population. I am also unaware of any disloyalty on the part of the Germans that is comparable to that of the Muslims with regard to severity or as a percentage of their population in the US. Hypothetically, if there were never any Muslims allowed in this country, the

ASM915, You illustrate my point. "How about just putting more stringent restrictions on the entry visa's. Gonzo's friends can keep a close watch on the new entries." The ever increasing presence of Muslims of questionable loyalty would force our security forces to "keep a close watch" on people inside America, citizen or not. Governments like excuses to do such things. The more Muslims there are, the better the excuse they have. I say keep them out to better protect the freedom of all CITIZENS, Muslim and not. Please note I never advocated anything close to internment. Muslim c

Lisa, You paint a one sidede picture. You can also ask the same question to the famalies of Irish Catholics killed by British soldiers and police. There is a big difference between the Irish people fighting for self-determination and al Qaeda attacking out over the entire world to impose its closed view of the world. One group is fighting for liberty, one is not. I do not think it is inapproprate to stop Muslims from coming into the US. Some of them want to kill us and have attacked us. Think about it, if we had never let Muslims into the US, we would probably be better off. September 11

I am not sure where they rant came from. Though I support the BSA, I do not support is congressional monopoly. I have also never seen anyone on this forum (or at least in this tread) in support of the monopoly either. Lastly, the DRP are not imposed on anyone. Members of the BSA join and subscribe to the DRP through their own free wil.

The comparison you make between the IRA and al Qaeda is very offensive. The 1918 Irish election, the last election in which the whole island participated produced a large Irish nationalist majority. The British refused to accept the democratic result and split of the portion of the country which (barely) wanted to remain in the Union. The IRA has since been committed to the natural union of the entire island in one state. No one can deny that is not ordained for that entire island to be united. Should the Irish just have accepted the division? I think not. If I was Irish I would have opp

If one wants to ensure that American liberty endures, he or she must realize that we must do something about this problem. The more people of questionable loyalty we let into this country will only force an increase in security measures. Several canidates in the GOP debates, including some of the major ones endorsed a proposal for a national ID card. Though I am a conservative, I am quite liberatarian when it comes to federal power and think this would be a travesty. This is the trend where this country is heading. Many people value security more than liberty. The more folks of questionab

Only 68% have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda.

32% of American Muslims would not come out and say they had an unfavorable view of al Qaeda. That is absurd. All things considered. I think it would be prudent to halt further Muslim immigration into this country to better protect the liberties and opportunities of all our citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim.

"In fact, somewhere later in the report it states that 80% of American Muslims reject suicide bombings and the like too." So only 20% of American Muslims approve of suicide bombings. Great! The survey has some other scarey parts: "Asked whether they believe groups of Arabs carried out the attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, 40% of Muslim Americans say yes, while 28% say they do not believe this, and about third (32%) say they do not know or decline to answer the question." So who do they think brought down the towers? and "Overall, 68%

Might it be time to just put a halt on Muslim immigration to America? After the results of that poll I think it is better to be safe and close the gate to some so we can maintain American as a land of liberty and opportunity for its citizens.

ok . . . Maybe you should do something about it.

Just started "The Campaigns of Napoleon." That is a hefty piece of work that should last me awhile.

There are other things important to conserve as well.

It would seem to me such a directive would also have to include a cause where a boy who participated in a deision to have a baby aborted would also be disqualified. Either that, or you would have the BSA saying it is acceptable to abort a child, but not to bring him or her into the world. I do not think that would be compatible with the values of the BSA.

We all know Scoutmaster Assigned Leadership Projects can be assigned for scouts who have not held a POR in order for them to advance. I have always been part of small troops who have not had problems getting every scout that needed one a POR. So I was just curious, for those of you that have used Leadership Projects, what do they usually consist of?

It still sanctions it to the effect that it recognizes it as a human institution. It even now recognizes it so by making it illegal.

I don't follow your point. Some states continued the trade for a while after the Convention.

Packsaddle, I don't disagee with anything that you are saying. I just stated the Great Compromise was originally misrepresented. To a person educated about the Constitutional Convention, they would associate it with the conflict between the big states and the little states, not the 3/5 agreement. In yet another compromise, the states agreed that importation of slaves would stop in 1808. Though I do not think I misrepresented you about the slave trade clause. You stated "I did not write that the Constitution banned the international slave trade after 1808." But you wrote

Packsaddle, perhaps you are correct, but I have never saw the 3/5 Compromise referred to as part of the Great Compromise. I was just trying to point out that if you reference that exclusively as the Great Compromise one is way off base in telling what it truly was about. Reference: http://www.historycentral.com/NN/Gcompromise.html It seems like you are a little off in your history as well. The Constitution did not ban the slave trade after 1808. It merely agreed that Congress would not prohibit it prior to that date.

SSScout, you seem to be a little off in your history of the Constitutional Convention. The Great Compromise dealt with the balance between large and small states. It was the middle ground between the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. This is what decided population would be used as a basis for determining representation in the House. The 3/5 compromise followed on how slave property should be counted.

Yes. Art I, Sec 3 "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Art I, Sec 9 "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundr

SSScout, You simplify that matter. It is not about how to treat people different than you? It is about what are the rights of other groups to treat people within their communities. And are the ways we treat people consistent with our principles of constitutional government. For the record, te Great Compromise was about who to balance the interests of large and small states, which determined how we have representation in the House and the Senate. The slavery quarrel was also not about keeping people in their place. It was about the right of many people to keep

And a state doesn't have the rights to use the powers it has?

States don't have rights! Are you kidding me? Ever read the 4th Article, or the 10th Amendment. Or the rest of the constitution which is laced with the rights of the states.