BrentAllen

Yes, Bush is the anti-Christ, yada, yada, yada... According to that right-wing mouth piece, the NYT, maybe it wasn't a lie? On June 25, 2004, The New York Times reported on an internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) document that discussed relations between Saddam Husseins regime and Osama bin Ladens al Qaeda. The document, authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community, reports on meetings between bin Laden emissaries and Uday Hussein in 1994. The document further reports that the Iraqi regime agreed to a request from bin Laden to broadcast sermons from an anti-Saudi cleric. The IIS document advises that cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement. And when bin Laden was ousted from Sudan in 1996, the document reports that Iraqis were seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship. All of which makes one thing clear: Carl Levin may still believe there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. But the Iraqis, who might have had unique insight into such matters, certainly did.

"Ruling in line with our values" requires a strict constructionist view - they are one in the same (for conservatives). This actually requires NO judicial activism. The only ruling from the SCOTUS on guns was back in the 1930's, regarding a sawed-off shotgun (less than 18"). Pay special attention to the SCOTUS definition of "militia" and weapons "of the kind in common use at the time." In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7 Looks like the SCOTUS has already decided the issue on militias and arms.

C. WALLACE: As we noted, the Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session this week to try to force or get the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the manipulation, the exaggeration of pre-war intelligence by the White House. I want to play a clip from your statement back in October of 2002 when you voted to authorize the use of force. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SCHUMER: "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the United States." (END VIDEO CLIP) C. WALLACE: Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same conclusion the president did. SCHUMER: Yes. The bottom line is I wasn't as sure of it as the president was, but I believe in a post-9/11 world, Chris, that the president does need latitude to keep our national security strong. And you know, that is true. But we also have to make sure, once you give the president that latitude, that you keep him accountable, and that's what we tried to do in the Senate the other day. Just because you give the president latitude, that's not at all a blank check. And it seems that subsequent to that time, the president made many, many, many mistakes in the use of intelligence, and all we got from the committee and there was a lot of talk that the White House was directing Pat Roberts (search) to do so. He's the chairman of the Intelligence Committee was stonewalling on the use of intelligence. And I think it's really important not to point fingers of blame, not to gain any political advantage, but so we don't make the same mistakes again. After all, we have an Iran. We have a North Korea. We have other problems that are going to come down the road for this president or future presidents. And we ought to see where things went wrong and correct them. Whoa!! Did Schumer not get the Democratic Talking Points, or are those Talking Points now being rewritten (for the 99th time) now that his comments have been brought to light?? To repeat, "Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same conclusion the president did. SCHUMER: Yes." Trevorum - Schumer just dropped a MOAB on your argument!! Who, exactly, is the blind one?? O.K. - what is your next fictitious argument? Let me guess - Bush assassinated Kennedy! It was in Texas, after all...

Wow - that is quite an argument. Let me make sure I got this straight. The CIA says Libi is a "likely fabricator" but the Bush administration KNOWS he is a liar. The CIA also says they have "Curveball" and Chalabi making similar claims. I guess the Bush administration KNEW they were liars, too. For such a stupid guy, Bush sure does know a lot! I guess the CIA wasn't torturing Libi enough to get him to recant before January, 2004. I guess it really didn't matter, since Bush already knew he was lying. Let's see - Bush is smarter than the CIA, able to dupe the entire Democratic Party, but is dumber than a rock. That is pretty remarkable! I guess the Democrats have given up criticizing on the WMDs, since they were so adamant that Saddam had them while Clinton was in office.

Ed, I'm just curious why you are always pushing the BOTTOM of the envelope in Scouting? It is your personal mission to get rid of the Scout uniform? It seems like you are always pointing out the lowest common denominator in the program - Scouts don't have to wear a uniform, Scouts don't have to participate in Eagle projects. Do you make comments like this in your unit, District and Council, or just here? Instead of encouraging boys to wear their uniform, you seemed determined to make sure they know they DON'T have to wear it. Am I wrong?

Trevorum, Is that the best you can do?? We all KNOW the intelligence was fault - no argument there. How does that translate into "Bush lied!" Libi was identified as a "LIKELY fabricator" - this is your smoking gun?? Please tell me you have more than this! More from the same sourse: "Mr. Libi, who was captured in Pakistan at the end of 2001, recanted his claims in January 2004. That prompted the C.I.A., a month later, to recall all intelligence reports based on his statements, a fact recorded in a footnote to the report issued by the Sept. 11 commission. Mr. Libi was not alone among intelligence sources later determined to have been fabricating accounts. Among others, an Iraqi exile whose code name was Curveball was the primary source for what proved to be false information about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs. And American military officials cultivated ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group, who has been accused of feeding the Pentagon misleading information in urging war." So we all agree the intelligence provided by the CIA was faulty. Note there were several sources telling the same thing. Note the date - Libi recanted in January, 2004. The CIA recalled the reports in February, 2004 - well after we went to war. Again, how does that translate into "Bush lied!"??

I love this! Typical liberal Democrat rant: "Bush lied! He fooled us into voting for and supporting the war!" Reporter: "I thought Democrats claimed Bush was an idiot - a crack-head drunk no smarter than a rock." Democrat: "That's right - he is an idiot! He killed what few brain cells he had with cocain and alcohol! The man has no brain!" Reporter: "So... how did someone so stupid fool all you brilliant Democrats into voting for the war?" Democrat: "Uh..... Well..... Hang on..... It doesn't matter - Bush is still an idiot and he lied to us!" Reporter: "That's what I thought..." I actually hope the liberals keep on this tack. They are even putting together skewed polls to show they are right. But where does it lead? That Saddam Hussein should be freed, and returned to Iraq. That is the only place their argument can lead, so I can't wait to hear Howard Dean making that case. Also, Hillary - their only real chance in '08, according to the polls - is pro-war! Yes, this is looking like a very strong argument for the libs! The Democrats are living in the past, where they could change their story and cover up their previous positions with lies. That won't work today, thanks to the internet. All the speeches the Democrats gave claiming Saddam had WMD's, along with all the headlines from the NTY and WP doing the same, are all only a few keystrokes away. So bring it on!

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." "The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." "If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons." "So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people." "The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War." "The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently. The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties." "Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future." Who said it? Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998. Hey packsaddle, did Clinton lie?? How is this different that what Bush has been saying??

"George Bush lied!" "George fooled us into voting for the war!" Don't you love the Democratic Party? They (Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Washington Post, NYT) all saw the intelligence, and all claimed Saddam had the weapons. The UN did the same. Now, they want to change the story. Blaming Bush for this is their last straw. Investigations have already proved Bush didn't lie, he didn't manipulate the evidence. So we illegally invaded a sovereign nation, Trevorum? How would propose we rectify that? Do we release Saddam and let him return to Iraq? If we did what you claim, then the only possible solution would be to return Saddam to power. Is that what the Democratic Party is going to call for? That should be interesting...

P-S, It's not your fault you are not educated on defensive gun use. The media has a deliberate bias against reporting any stories in which a firearm is used successfully in defense. One of the classic examples of this bias involved the Appalachian Law School attack. A student who was failing out of the program took a pistol and killed a Dean and a professor. He then went outside and starting firing into a crowd, killing a student and wounding 3 others before being subdued by other students. When I first read this story, I wanted to find out who these other students were, who were brave enough to take this guy down while unarmed. I mean - it takes a pretty brave soul to charge a gunman firing shots at you when you are unarmed yourself! Well, lo and behold - there were 218 separate stories written about this incident - that is 218 individual stories written, not a bunch of AP reprints. Out of those 218 stories, ONLY 3 MENTIONED THE STUDENTS THAT SUBDUED THE BADGUY DID SO WITH THEIR OWN FIREARMS! Now, you either have to believe all those journalist thought the fact the other students used a firearm to stop this madman murderer was a small, insignificant detail, or you believe there is a media bias against showing firearms can be used to stop crime. P-S, which do you believe? The sad/funny part about all of this is the Washington Post finally put out another report on the incident, with this as the last line: "Odighizuwa was subdued without incident by armed students." They did this 2 years and 2 months after the shooting actually took place, and was first reported. Sense a little reluctance of their part?? P-S, there is no Constitutional right to drive or own a car. Requiring licensing and registration to drive or own a car is not restricting a Constitutional right. Requiring the same of gunowners is exactly that - a restriction of a Constitutional right.

I met Gingrich back when his star was shining brightly. Had my picture taken with him, and had him autograph my GOP hat. When the news broke about his affair, all that stuff went in the garbage. I lost just about all the respect I had for him. He is trying to get back in the game, but is having a hard time - I think most Republicans feel the same way I do, and won't have anything to do with him. Does it really matter how much good you do outside the family when you are causing so much pain and sorrow within it? Here again is a difference between the parties. Gingrich screwed up and is punished by the GOP. Clinton commits adultry, lies under oath, helps Monica write a false affidavit which his lawyer later uses in court (felonies) - and he is worshiped by the Democrats. How can anyone NOT see the moral differences in the parties??

I guess you (able-bodied) folks didn't realize you ARE part of the militia. Better check your state constitutions! Fro Wikipedia: A militia is a group of citizens organized to provide paramilitary service. The word can have four slightly different meanings: An official reserve army, composed of non-professional soldiers The national police forces in Russia, and other CIS countries, and the Soviet Union: Militsiya The entire able-bodied population of a state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by the government Bluegoose - you and others who don't carry or own guns (if that applies to you) should thank the rest of us for doing so. We help protect you. How, you ask? The bad guys don't know who is armed, and who isn't. Ever wonder why crime is so high in D.C. or New York City? Because they are all unarmed! (except for the bad guys). If you have any doubts about my claim of gunowners protecting non-gunowners, just take this little test. Put a sign in your front yard and on your front door stating "Gun-free home". How does that make you feel?

Maybe that Troop is saving up money to build their own Scout Lodge or Hut?? We were sitting on a sizeable balance, and used some of the money to purchase a nice computer projector. We use it at nearly every Pack meeting, and even had an "Outdoor Movie Night" this past summer, which went over very well. We raise a fair amount of money, but we also spend it. I want an exciting program for the boys, not a large balance in the checking account. It is hard for me to make Scouting one of the most exciting and rewarding experiences in their lives without spending some money.

Hey, P-S, keep the posts coming - you really crack me up! Even though the crime rate in Dunwoody is very low, unlike you (I guess), I do have to venture out of my neighborhood. I drive all over Atlanta and north Georgia, so yes, I do watch the news to stay informed. My Alma Mater, Georgia Tech, is right in the heart of downtown Atlanta, and I've had some very good friends and fraternity brothers who have had some really bad experiences with "thugs." So feel free to ignore things if you wish - that is your choice. That gentleman was possibly the last conservative Democrat in the country - Senator Zell Miller, from Georgia. Retired Marine, former Governor of Georgia - someone this state is very proud of! He has several books out: "Corps Values: Everything You Need To Know I Learned In The Marines", "A National Party No More: The Conscience of A Conservative Democrat" (about the decline of the Democrat Party), and "A Deficit of Decency". Unfortunately, liberals probably wouldn't understand or appreciate them. No, the problem today IS how the parties treat any idiots that show up in their party. Republicans run them off, Democrats embrace them. (Need I also mention Senator "Leaky" Leahy, who, in 1987, was forced to resign from his position as Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking classified information to a reporter? Or Barney Frank, who's housemate, Steve Gobie, was running a male prostitution ring out of his taxpayer-funded apartment? He was reprimanded by the House not only for that, but also for using his office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets.) No, there is no comparison to the parties in this respect, and it is not lost on the electorate.

Sure, I will mention Coulter and Thurmond. Thurmond was a segregationist, but he never was a Grand Cyclops of the KKK, as was Democratic Senator Robert Byrd. Coulter writes conservative columns for a living, and you go to conservative magazines or web pages to read her opinions. The difference is the lefty columnists appear in so-called mainstream publications - Eric Alterman at MSNBC, the entire editorial board at the New York Times. I will tell you the real difference between Republicans and Democrats, with a couple of examples. Trent Lott makes some comment at Thurmond's birthday about how he wishes Strom had won the presidency back in the 50's. For that, he loses his leadership position in the Senate. Compare that with Jessie Jackson counseling and offering spiritual guidance to Clinton after his affair with Monica - while Jessie is having his own affair with a staffer! Is Jessie reprimanded or ostracized? No - he is invited to speak at the party's National Convention! Sharpton should have gone to jail for his part in the Tawana Brawley fiasco, but instead he is invited to also speak at the Democratic National Convention! Voters do not forget what these people have done, and they then see the Democratic Party embrace these individuals. They see the values exhibited by the leaders of the party. Is it any wonder Republicans now control the Presidency, the House and the Senate?

Owl62, I can't find any mention of wearing underwear at all in the Insignia Guide - since it isn't mentioned, are we not allowed to wear it?? Does this mean Scouts are supposed to be "going Commando?" :-)

Cynthia McKinney is back in office. She ran again after losing, and won. Another great embarassment for the State of Georgia, along with Carter. The difference is - the Republican Party wants nothing to do with David Duke. The Democratic Party embraces Al Sharpton, and while he has never won, he did run for President as a Democrat. So has Jessie Jackson. Duke was elected as a Representative, served one term and was history. He is a small blip on the historical radar, whereas Sharpton, Jackson, Michael Moore etc.... are main stream players in the Democratic party. BTW, did David Duke ever address the Republican National Convention? Remember who all spoke at the 2004 Democratic National Convention? Doesn't look like they are keeping them at arm's length to me.

Anyone who thinks selecting Justices to the Supreme Court doesn't have anything to do with Scouting needs to read some not-too-distant history. Issues dear to Scouting will be before the Supreme Court again. We should be very concerned about this process. From what I have heard and read so far, I agree with the selection of Alito. I'm glad Miers is off the ticket. As for the Second Amendment, I've seen convincing arguments that "Arms" meant the equivalent of weapons used by the common soldier. Today, that would be the M16/M4 or AR-15. Of course, we can only own the semi-auto version, unless you are willing to pony up $5,000 to $10,000 for a pre-1986 model. We shoot the AR-15's in National Match Highpower competition - lot's of fun, and very accurate all the way out to 1,000 yards! For those who don't like guns, remember - Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my firearms.

It's all in my head?? Wow! That is great news! I thought all those stories on the nightly news and in the paper about murder, rape and robbery were actually true! Boy, do I feel silly! Carter was just flat out incompetent. He was a control freak, to the point that he couldn't even delegate scheduling use of the presidential tennis courts to anyone else - he had to even control that! Unfortunately, Georgia will probably never see one of our own in the White House again, thanks to the disaster Carter unleashed on the country. More revisionist history about Reagan and AIDS. Reagan asked Majic Johnson to lead his effort on fighting AIDS and Majic agreed - until his lefty friends found out and said - "Man, you must be crazy! You can't help a Republican!!" So Majic resigned, and joined the chorus on the left about how Reagan wasn't doing anything, and was to blame for the entire worldwide spread of AIDS. And exactly what was he slow to fund? 20 years later, there still isn't a cure for AIDS. And with all the education and information provided in the last 20 years, there are still tons of people having unprotected sex, and acquiring HIV. In Africa, the men actually think they can get rid of AIDS by having sex with a virgin, so they are raping toddlers. I suppose Reagan is to blame for this as well. Bottom line is some people will not change their behavior, no matter what. Blaming Reagan for the spread of AIDS is tantamount to blaming him for the sun going down every evening. He had just as much to do with both.

I actually live in a pretty nice area, just north of Atlanta. Average home is probably north of $300K, most moms stay home, the public schools are like private schools. Does that make us crime free? No. If there is a crime free neighborhood in the country, someone please let me know where it is. I live in Dekalb County - see the 911 response times below. Am I going to wait on them to save me? Again - listen to your local news and see how many times to police show up to stop a crime, and how many times they show up after. Yes, kids do find guns that aren't properly stored. I'd bet anyone a BSA Field Book that 90% of those cases where kids find a gun in the house and are playing with it - the gun owner is not a member of the "evil" NRA. You might not like the politics of the NRA, but they preach gun safety. They are probably the largest advocates of gun safety in the country. And I'm sure you talked to a local cop who said all that. Chief Pennington of the Atlanta Police said his officers would be dying in the streets if the Assault Weapons Ban wasn't extended. Guess what - it wasn't, and there haven't been any police shot or "outgunned" as Pennington would put it. In case you didn't know, most cops, especially captains, are basically anti-gun - meaning they don't really want citizens armed. I shoot with cops, from Gwinnett County, who are just the opposite. I've owned firearms for over 20 years. I've had a carry permit for nearly 10 years. In all those years, I've never pointed a firearm at anyone in anger, and never had the need to. I hope I live to be 100, and never have to use a firearm in self-defense. If I ever do, I will follow the Boy Scout motto - I will Be Prepared. Packsaddle - do you carry a first aid kit when you go hiking or camping? Are you paranoid you are going to get hurt? No? Gee, why are you not paranoid, but I am? BTW, the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting or target shooting. I don't know where you got your diploma or your degree in math, but you should ask for your money back. After Bush's second term, Republicans will have held the White House for 28 of the last 44 years. Republicans didn't gain control of the House of Representatives until 1994, and didn't gain control of the Senate until 2002. So, exactly how did Republicans control things for 32 of the past 44 years?? Inquiring minds want to know! Here are the police response times for all 911 calls: OVERALL 911 RESPONSE TIMES Cobb County 18.4 minutes Fulton County 18.6 minutes City of Atlanta 21.9 minutes DeKalb County 23.6 minutes

History lesson: In 1994, Democrats, with much help from the anti-gun crowd, passed the Assault Weapon Ban. Schumer and others said the camel now his has nose in the tent. If you don't know about camels, they try to get into a tent very slowly - first their nose, then their head... This camel was total gun control. After the Democrats suffered such a stunning defeat in the House and Senate in the 1994 elections, in part because of the AWB, Brady and others learned they had to change their message. So no, you don't see that direct goal of a total ban. Instead, you see proposals for gun owners to install trigger locks on firearms, and then to have them locked away in a vault or closet - unloaded. They would then have you lock your ammunition away in another area. If they had their way, it would take 20 minutes to load a firearm for self defense, so relying on the police isn't that bad. Brady has learned they have to divide and conquer. They go after one group (semi-autos), then another (scoped-deer rifles newly named "sniper" rifles) and so on. In the meantime, they try to make the others as inaccessible as possible. The eventual result is the same. The reason is the same.

Man, some of y'all don't get around much, do you? Yes, liberals HATE guns! Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, etc... have said they would get rid of all of them, if they could. And what about all those anti-gun liberal groups? The Brady Campaign and all the spin-off groups are not apologetic about their goal to rid the US of guns. Have Republicans tried to pass any laws banning poor people, as the Democrats have passed laws banning firearms? Prairie - see if you can find out what the average response time for a 911 call is in your area. If it is less than 20 minutes, you are doing good. Imagine - 20 minutes for some freak to ruin the lives of you and your family before the police show up - if you get a call off. In a home invasion, you won't even have time to make a call. Then it is just you and the bad guy(s). Keep an eye on the news for a few weeks and see how many violent crimes the police actually stop vs how many they show up after the fact to collect evidence and tag & bag. It's not their fault - they can't be everywhere at once. Me - I take it as my personal responsibility as the head of my family to protect my wife and kids. I don't sub that out on a hope and a prayer that the police will show up in time to stop a thug from hurting them. So yes, I am well armed, and have a carry permit. As for the forests, have you missed all the homes burning out west the past few years from forest fires? Sensible-minded people have wanted to thin the forests close to homes and remove the dead wood from the forest floor to keep fires from spreading, and make them easier to control. Liberals have screamed bloody murder at the proposals! They want the forests protected from all human activity. I don't make this stuff up! And talk about slandering groups - Republicans don't believe in ecology?? Yes, that's right - Republicans want dirty air and dirty water!! How ridiculous!! Y'all must think Republicans live on another planet, and don't care what happens to this one. We DO live here, so we want to keep it clean. Argue all you want - the BSA is a conservative organization. Want more proof? Would the ACLU try to destroy a liberal or moderate group? Would Democrats, at their National Convention, boo a liberal or moderate group? 'nuff said.

OGE, No, I haven't forgotten. My point was liberals hate guns and the BSA is teaching boys how to shoot rifles and shotguns. Liberals might hate a gun a little more if it is pointed at an animal or human, but they don't stop hating them if they are only pointed at a bullseye. I shoot tons more rounds at bullseye targets through Highpower competition than I will ever fire at an animal. I have no problem with this policy. I do think the prohibition against lazer-tag is a bit unreasonable. I don't have a problem with the smoking and alchohol policies, either. I don't smoke, but I do enjoy an adult beverage every now and then. There are reasons for these policies - safety, mainly - that override individual liberties. What if Scouts get into my cooler of beer, or into my bottle of Jack Daniels? Or if a Scout gets hurt late at night and must be transported to a hospital, and all of the adults have been drinking? I think the policies also help us teach the boys you don't have to have those things around to have a fun time camping or in the outdoors. After all, a Scout is clean: A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean. Sounds like that rules out smoking - definitely not clean - and alchohol at their age (keeping the mind fit).

Amusing? I don't see how anyone can see the BSA as anything other than a conservative organization. Let's look at the issues that define liberal vs conservative. Religion and homosexuality should be enough to end the debate, but let's go further. Guns - Liberals hate them; the BSA is teaching boys how to shoot rifles and shotguns. Helping those less fortunate - liberals believe in using taxes to redistribute wealth, to take from the rich and give to the poor; the BSA teaches to volunteer to help others (as do conservatives). Environment - liberals are environmentalists (leave the forests alone); conservatives are conservationists (believe in renewable resources). As a Life member of both the NRA and Safari Club International, I've put more money into conservation through taxes on hunting licenses, rifles, hunting gear and ammo than any liberal environmentalist I know. Finally, liberals believe the government is there to solve your problems; the BSA teaches self-sufficiency. You like definitions, so let's look at "conservative" conservative ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-srv-tv) adj. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change n. One favoring traditional views and values. A supporter of political conservatism. Sounds like the definition of Scouting to me - TIMELESS VALUES As opposed to the definition of "liberal" - the BSA IS limited to or by established, traditional authoritarion attitudes. That sort of excludes the BSA from being liberal, don't you think?

Bush convinced the country he was a moderate?? I thought Bush and his buddies (Rumsfeld, Rove, etc...) were a bunch on NeoCons! When asked what type Supreme Court nominee he would seek, he stated in front of the world that he wanted someone like Scalia or Thomas. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me. No, Bush was elected as a conservative. Unfortunately, he has acted like a moderate in office (fiscally, anyway). Regardless, I'm glad all you liberals are "broad-minded" and "open to new ideas" enough to join a group as conservative as the Boy Scouts of America. I'm surprised, but glad.