BS-87

NJCubScouter - It was intended to be a joke... By the strictest definition in the Law of Nations at the time of the drafting, it was understood that to be a natural-born citizen you must be born of two citizens of the nation you're born in. Rubio's parents were Cuban-nationals in exile.

Should have rephrased that. It can be construed as sexual harassment based on how the question is asked. If you're blunt and straightforward, it's usually not a problem if the question is relevant and applied equally. However, if you make it known there's rumors and you beat around the bush (these leaders have a history of in-fighting and lack of tact) it becomes a hostile environment. The person may even feel slighted, abused, and a creative lawyer could probably find something to seek damages for.

Since you haven't gotten a good answer yet, I'll give you one. From Page 2 of the Adult Application "The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law." When you couple that with the BSA position "We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirements in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts." But ho

I recognize that we're ultimately trying to do good in the world. What we don't realize as much are the unintended consequences of our do-gooding. Until we're all willing to admit that our mere presence around the world causes some folks to misinterpret our intentions. This creates resentment, and ultimately radicalism. I'm not saying that terrorist attacks against America is "America's chickens coming home to roost". What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be surprised that our worldly presence and bombings causes resentment and helps fuel extremism because they don't recognize

This question is far too important to be in the Issues and Politics section... Definitely a Program Discussion question... Anyway. The boy definitely could use counsel on the subject, and it'd be wrong to advance him without he and his family having that discussion. Notice I say he and his family. Let it be known to the parents that you couldn't pass him through a Scoutmaster Conference at this time because he needs to learn more about the 12th point and decide whether he really is an atheist or not. You can offer to help, and point out that believing in any higher power which serves

Rubio's not even a natural-born citizen. He, like Obama, is a domestic-born citizen, but not a natural-born citizen as was common law as per Law of Nations at the time of our Constitution's drafting. Now we can argue about Law of Nations being used for the definition of the term, but if it's good enough to define American maritime law, why wouldn't it be the primary source for questions like citizenship?

"Ron Paul has some good ideas, and he has a few which are really too extreme, particularly on foreign policy. Isolationism as a policy simply won't sell amongst the moderate independents." It gets frustrating hearing the same talking points repeated by people who are obviously very intelligent. It makes one feel like the media is winning in programming folks to their liking... Anyways. Ron Paul is not isolationist. From Wikipedia: Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitm

evil, We will have to agree to disagree. This is because our views of human nature are not even comparable. It's disheartening to hear folks pump up the ego of the United States as if we're the only capable force for good in the world. Being capable of intervening to prevent human tragedy doesn't always mean we are obligated to prevent human tragedy, as any acts of intervention will always have unintended consequences that are almost always a larger long term problem than the immediate tragedy. Also, being spread so thin, we're forced now to pick and choose which human tragedies to inter

"I like Paul as far as fiscal responsibility is concerned, but I consider his foreign policy approach as reckless." You consider Ron Paul's foreign policy approach reckless? What I consider reckless is this following approach to foreign policy; I really do not like to be stung by wasps. I notice that there is nest where these wasps live. I do not like where they are living, as it's a threat to my friend who is allergic to them. I therefore choose to throw rocks at the wasps nest to discourage the wasps from stinging my friend. However, not only does this cause the wasps to

The media likes to focus on the Tea-o-cons because they are roughly 1,000 to 1,000,000 times more likely to scream something racist or insane in the presence of cameras. That and because the media doesn't give much creedence to libertarians ever anyway. It's easy to paint a negative picture of a group you don't agree with when you focus your attention on the most disagreeable faction of that group. However, while the Tea-o-cons are entitled to their beliefs, it's important that we've managed to open their minds a little to Liberty when it comes to economic issues. Now we just need to conv

Doesn't resonate with me... If you want to find a book most Tea Partiers would agree with (if they didn't know the author's name) pick up "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues Affecting our Freedom" by Ron Paul. Tea Partiers today are largely following two presidential candidates, and it's a house divided as you can imagine. At the Iowa Straw Poll (most significant recent political gathering) there were two factions, Libertarian Tea Partiers and Social Conservative Tea Partiers (or Tea-o-cons). They were represented in pretty equal numbers. There were some interested in Ri

"Also, I originally proposed a fair tax." The most realistic way to approach abolishing and replacing the current income tax code probably. Either that or we should focus on a flat tax with no deductions, rebates, or incentives.

I'm only a humble Tea-Partier, but I'd reckon to say we're united by a shared vision of fiscal conservatism and a reduction in the size of government. Where you'll see differentiation from club to club and Tea-Partier to Tea-Partier is foreign policy issues and social issues. There are definitely some Tea Party members who want more "Christian Legislation" (though I dare say that may be an oxymoron) and there are some ignorant Tea Party members who want nothing more than to nuke all the sand people. However, those are not the messages that are embraced at gatherings of Tea Party mem

Tampa, if it truly is a wash, think about the difference in how the money is being spent. Money is being spent creating jobs surrounding a product and service instead of incentivizing drug abuse. Sounds like a much wiser investment, and helps ensure that the State only helps those who help themselves.

I did read it, and found the whole article smacking of the writer's own personal bias. I'd be interested in finding out how the writer defines "having a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president" and "a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics". When you have open ended definitions, you can interpret any poll whatever way you'd like to. That's also assuming their "random" poll is truly representative of Americans or if it's representative of how they feel Americans are. Really it's an opinion piece for a reason,

Who'd have thunk the New York Slimes would make desperate attempts to tie Tea Partiers to racism?

Don't worry about it AJR, anonymity should be valued when online. This makes nonsensical usernames a wiser choice than your initials, crew number, and camp

I just realized I know you AJR. But anyway, been to Gardner Dam and I don't think there's another camp I can recommend for anyone looking for a Patrol Cooking Camp.

Haha, definitely saw it. "Since when is Ron Paul the 13th floor of a hotel?"

I trust you have sources Beavah, too many numbers to be tossing around without citations. Overall it may be accurate, but a tad too dramatic. We're Scouters, and understand better than most the obligation of each and every person to help their neighbors and communities in times of need. If the federal government got entirely out of the business of warmaking and entitlements and got into the business of defense and empowering communities, would there be a deficit at all? I'm not saying cut the entitlements tomorrow, I'm saying set the gears in motion to faze out the programs

Ron Paul. They don't come any cleaner. You may not agree with him, but at least you know exactly how he'd govern and where he stands because his record has been impressively consistent for 30 years and based on principles versus party lines. Of course this means he's often the 1 in a vote that went through 434-1... No Patriot Act, No Obamacare, No Undeclared Wars. Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none.

No. This suggestion is horribly innappropriate. Rick Perry does not need the endorsement of Eagle Scouts. Rick Perry also deserves no alignment with the TEA Party, as he is a big government goon and former Democrat. Were you aware he was a Campaign Chairman for Al Gore's 1988 Presidential Campaign? I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, I'm just pointing out that he is being misrepresented by being put in the light he's being put in. It's popular now to be small government, but Perry isn't small government and so is pretending to be. If you want to vote for four more years

TAHAWK - The general welfare clause does not provide for general welfare programs. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-general-welfare-clause-and-stoned-teenagers/ A good analogy about the general welfare clause conflicting with the actual enumerated articles of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson explained, Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

I think that Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to denounce government programs which provide for the "general welfare". This is because Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to help other people at all times. They do not put this responsibility onto anyone else but themselves, and so commit to personal actions which provide aid to others whenever that Scout or Scouter is reasonably able. It would be irresponsible of a Scout or Scouter to shirk their obligation by promoting indirect "general welfare" programs.

If he's not motivated by advancement, do Venturing.