Jump to content

denver4und@aol.com

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About denver4und@aol.com

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Denver, Colorado
  1. Rooster, before you get all crazy about my ignoring your reference to Sec 5, please note: 1) it had no part in the Supreme's decision. The Federal Supremes said their decision was solely based on: " With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. " 2) the part you quoted was the excuse I speak of in my reply. The Florida Secty of State is bound by the 6 day rule. The Federal Supremes merely waited 'til it was too late and then sent it back for action "consistent with this opinion" which did not allow any reconsideratoin by
  2. Rooster. Sure I can explain the decision. Here goes..... Well, skipping the year of constitutional law, and all constitutional history, here goes: The Supremes got a petition saying that the Flordia Supreme Court was WRONG to order a recount, and that the State Supreme Court was wrong to worry about why or how so many votes were thrown out with the chad issues. The Federal Supremes said "we'll hear it, there might be a 14th Amendment issue, but we'll issue a stay and there will be no recount while we think about it". Then the deadline for the Florida Secty of State to
  3. Rooster says: "First, you don't know what my professional qualifications may be." Nope. But its clear you are not a lawyer. Rooster also writes: "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? " See, they teach you that in law school. Now I say "Your Honor, Please instruct the witness to answer the question." and then the judge says: "Rooster, P
  4. Rooster. HUH? Ok, I'll bite. Please quote to me the exact wording that you believe the supreme court acted to "enforce it as written". If you don't have the language, please refrain from impuning my professional knowledge (which you do not have), or my professional interpretation (which you are, as far as I can tell, unqualified to question).
  5. Come on Rooster, not even you can believe that the Supreme's did anything other than pick their man. Even Justice O'Connor was quoted (during a party) as saying the night of the election that Bush would win before her court. I am a lawyer. I have not met one lawyer, even the staunch republican lawyers in my own office, who claims to believe that the Bush v Gore decision had ANYTHING at all to do with the constitution with the sole exception that when 5 black robes agree it becomes law. A justice's son belongs to a law firm. That firm argues for Bush. In ANY OTHER court in the c
  6. You're right Rooster7, there are some things we'll never know. In this case we do know: Boy George is a liar and a chickenhawk. What we don't know is how much he, Cheney and the rest were promised by their buddies in those secret meetings. The coffee's on the fire, time to smell it.
  7. I haven't posted in awhile. But I cannot believe anyone still believes in Boy George's fundamental goodness or that he has any faith in anything except politics. The man is a chickenhawk. He evaded the draft by taking a national guard slot and then went awol. I've taken to calling Boy George's party the Bushwackers because they sure as heck are not Republicans. Rumsfield, Cheney, all the rest who surround Boy George evaded the draft and avoided serving -- but they are sure willing to talk tough, and let other parent's children pay the price. Republicans were MEN like Father Bush, Reagan,
  8. Eagle74 writes: "While we both understand that we are "guests", without a vote..." Not quite. We are not guests. We have a right to be present, and a right to speak. That is the point of my discussion above. Its this concept that we are somehow in need of an invitation, which can be revoked that causes problems. Someone else posted a comment about too much formalism. That is also one of my points. We have too many folks who are control freaks and afraid to have discussions among adults about whatever is bothering them, and instead want to either make the discussion moot by
  9. Rooster7 wrote: "If I honestly thought you understood God's Word, your little rebuttal would really concern me. However, my friend, you are what I like to call, a bumper stick theologianlots of rhetoric, but no substance." and "You inferred that I am being judgmental. Let me speak more plainly than you - You need to pick your company better." You know, you're right, I should pick my company better. I'll not be corresponding to anything that Rooster 7 writes in the future (at least I hope not). I have tried in the forums to be fair, non-judgmental, and to remember that this is
  10. Acco40 wrote: "My beef in all of this is that the COR and the full committee should be involved in selecting (committee function) and approving (COR and CO) a new SM and Committee chair. The SM issue is touchy. He did formally resign. Then he before another SM was "installed" he decided to keep on as SM. Should he have that option? My view is that once he has resigned, only the Committee and COR/CO can reinstate him or elect to go with someone else." Why? Why do you want the SM go go? Does everyone else feel the same? If no one wants him to go, then why all the desire for form
  11. Acco 40 wrote: "My beef in all of this is that the COR and the full committee should be involved in selecting (committee function) and approving (COR and CO) a new SM and Committee chair. The SM issue is touchy. He did formally resign. Then he before another SM was "installed" he decided to keep on as SM. Should he have that option? My view is that once he has resigned, only the Committee and COR/CO can reinstate him or elect to go with someone else." Why? Why do you want him to go? Do most folks feel that way? If so, it's time for some deep thinking and heartfelt talk among
  12. Dan, maybe I am confused. You're original post indicated that you saw no evidence of patrol method and wrote: "...I convinced him to join the one that is the most boy run, but I expect more! After being to, 2 winteralls, 1 camporees, 1 summer camp, and 1 camporall, I see no troops that uses the patrol method." I assumed that you meant your own troop as well was not using the patrol method. So, if a troop isn't using the patrol method, what is it that they're using (and you're seeing?). If a troop goes camping w/o the patrol method, then the adults must be running the show. I
  13. Hi. Hey CubsRgr8, you lost the thread. The question had nothing to do with his being a leader, that was decided and the thread asked should somebody revoke his eagle badge. I didn't address the former, just the latter. Hey Rooster7, you're an inspriation for many verses, like "judge not, lest....". Again, you can "vote" to take away the badge, but my challege posted earlier has not been accepted. so far, no one can find a mechanism for revoking an eagle award. As for forgiveness and who gets into heaven. For crying out loud, we're scouters. As for me, I'll let God do his work
  14. Hi. I would like to comment on two things. First, the idea that Troop Committees are run as the dictatorship of the Committee Chair and the SM, and second, the idea that SM or ASM's may be excluded from a Troop Committee meeting. DO TROOP COMMITTEES VOTE? OR ARE THEY "RUN" BY FIAT OF THE CC AND/OR SM? I don't usually go "all legal" on everyone, but Bob White and I disagree, as they say in Star Trek, "at the molecular level" on this one. Look at the Troop Committee Guidebook (Pub. 34505B, copyright 1998, BSA). Page 13, Chapter entitled "Troop Committee Organization and
  15. Hi Momscouter who wrote: "OK here is my dilemma - we joined a different troop last May. My son is 12 and has only been a Boy Scout for a year, and wanted to go in this troop because he had friends there .... the SM was almost ready to retire (he has been a SM for over 40 years) ...the SM does not even believe in the patrol method, does not have a PLC, plans all activities for the troop, refuses to use 'blue cards', ... the CC gets downright hostile if either of us 2 new committee members suggests any changes AND I recently found out that the Unit Commissioner ... views us newcomers as tro
×
×
  • Create New...